It's not about the war anymore... it's about lying.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What lies you Bush apologists can come up with. We did not just sell Saddam simple ammonia and chlorine, he did not need cleaning supplies he needed WMDs and he got them from that buffoon, Ronald Reagan. Reagan knew that Saddam was unstable way back then but he didn't give a damn, he went on to supply Saddam with weopons and probably billions of dollars.

In a sense, Reagan created the monster that Saddam turned out to be. And that my friend is the whole truth, try it some time, you just may like it.

That's bullshit we supplied Iraq with 1/2 of 1% of weapons supplied to Saddam by foriegn powers during the Iran-Iraq war, we didn't give Saddam any WMD's we gave him chemicals for legitimate pesticide use, what he did with these chemicals after the fact is not our responsibility not to mention the fact that the majoritiy of the chemicals used to create WMD either were produced within Iraq or they came from France and the Soviet Union who supplied the bulk of Saddam's weapons during the conflict.

In a sense Jaq Charaq and the Soviet Politiburo created the monster Saddam turned out to be any statement contrary to that is anti-U.S. Chomskyist bullshit intended to skew the truth of the matter which is THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Comrade Brian]

THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The US hated Iran ever since 1979, Saddam they didn't know too much about, except he helped push Soviet influence out of the country. Also the Soviets hated the hell out of Saddam for doing that. So the US is actually ex-pro-Saddam, just like they are ex-pro-al-Qaeda. Hippocrytes.

 

[KidRocks]

That's bullshit we supplied Iraq with 1/2 of 1% of weapons supplied to Saddam by foriegn powers during the Iran-Iraq war, we didn't give Saddam any WMD's we gave him chemicals for legitimate pesticide use, what he did with these chemicals after the fact is not our responsibility not to mention the fact that the majoritiy of the chemicals used to create WMD either were produced within Iraq or they came from France and the Soviet Union who supplied the bulk of Saddam's weapons during the conflict.

In a sense Jaq Charaq and the Soviet Politiburo created the monster Saddam turned out to be any statement contrary to that is anti-U.S. Chomskyist bullshit intended to skew the truth of the matter which is THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We gave him chemicals for legitimate pesticide use? Ya right, that's just like you giving a child a gun and claiming afterwards that what that child does with it is not your responsibility.

President Reagan was showing a lack of judgment when it came to Saddam and Iraq thus Reagan lost his critical judgement way back then, have you lost yours too?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The US hated Iran ever since 1979, Saddam they didn't know too much about, except he helped push Soviet influence out of the country. Also the Soviets hated the hell out of Saddam for doing that. So the US is actually ex-pro-Saddam, just like they are ex-pro-al-Qaeda. Hippocrytes.

Bullshit the Soviets supplied Saddam with the bulk of his weapondry during that conflict followed by the French, WE SUPPLIED 1/2 OF 1% OF SADDAM'S WEAPONS!!!!!!! What do you people not get about that statement?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We gave him chemicals for legitimate pesticide use? Ya right, that's just like you giving a child a gun and claiming afterwards that what that child does with it is not your responsibility.

President Reagan was showing a lack of judgment when it came to Saddam and Iraq thus Reagan lost his critical judgement way back then, have you lost yours too?

It doesn't matter anyways Reagan didn't personally give Saddam the chemicals and like I said 1/2 of 1% came from the U.S. Saddam had fully funcitioning chemical factories, he was fully capable of creating the chemicals himself, he may have gotten some of his precursors from the U.S. but individual Chemicals does not a WMD make, and the fact of the matter that the bulk of the chemicals used for to make WMD came from outside the U.S. from France and Russia and from within Iraq itself, these are chemicals they aren't hard to make, you can find the chemicals at the local supersave for Christ's sakes.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Bullshit the Soviets supplied Saddam with the bulk of his weapondry during that conflict followed by the French, WE SUPPLIED 1/2 OF 1% OF SADDAM'S WEAPONS!!!!!!! What do you people not get about that statement?

Much of the weaponry was from when Iraq was more or less a Soviet Satellite State, now Saddam helped kicked them out by staging a coup. Also if the US supplied it with 1/2 of 1%, it is still supplying.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Much of the weaponry was from when Iraq was more or less a Soviet Satellite State, now Saddam helped kicked them out by staging a coup. Also if the US supplied it with 1/2 of 1%, it is still supplying.

What's your point we supplied Iran with weapons too probably in equivalent amounts to support the Contras against the Sandanistas, the fact of the matter is that you people would like to twist the notion that the U.S. was best buddies with Saddam, this is not true, Iraq got the majority of his weapons from France and Russia NOT FROM THE U.S. 1/2 of 1% is equivalent to the support we got in operation Iraqi freedom from Costa Rica, which is not a whole hell of alot.

 

[KidRocks]

What's your point we supplied Iran with weapons too probably in equivalent amounts to support the Contras against the Sandanistas, the fact of the matter is that you people would like to twist the notion that the U.S. was best buddies with Saddam, this is not true, Iraq got the majority of his weapons from France and Russia NOT FROM THE U.S. 1/2 of 1% is equivalent to the support we got in operation Iraqi freedom from Costa Rica, which is not a whole hell of alot.

Reagan helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Reagan also provided critical battle planning to Saddam in his war with Iraq. Reagan knew that Saddam would possibly use the WMDs against his own people not to mention Iran.

These are the same weapons that the UN Inspectors were searching for.

 

[Comrade Brian]

What's your point we supplied Iran with weapons

The US hated Iran because of the hostage thing and kicking the US out in 1979, also the US cheered on Saddam, not only because we hated Iran, but also because Saddam helped kick out Soviet influence in Iraq.

the fact of the matter is that you people would like to twist the notion that the U.S. was best buddies with Saddam

I never said that, implied, or will believe it, I just don't think they're pure enemies. Maybe you should quite twisting me.

Iraq got the majority of his weapons from France and Russia

That is because I believe Iraq is a former French territory and a fmr. Soviet Satellite, so they would have old equipment and supplie, and also some means to develop their own technology.

1/2 of 1% is equivalent to the support we got in operation Iraqi freedom from Costa Rica, which is not a whole hell of alot.

Its not a lot but before you said: "THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", but then you said they supported 1/2 of 1%, so you just basically falsified your claim by yourself.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Reagan helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Reagan also provided critical battle planning to Saddam in his war with Iraq. Reagan knew that Saddam would possibly use the WMDs against his own people not to mention Iran.

These are the same weapons that the UN Inspectors were searching for.

Total bullshit with no evidence what so ever, yes we gave Iraq loggistical support so did half of the plannet including your precious French, and no we did not help Iraq develop any WMD programs that's a complete lie and you have no proof to back such an assertion.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The US hated Iran because of the hostage thing and kicking the US out in 1979, also the US cheered on Saddam, not only because we hated Iran, but also because Saddam helped kick out Soviet influence in Iraq.

I never said that, implied, or will believe it, I just don't think they're pure enemies. Maybe you should quite twisting me.


That is because I believe Iraq is a former French territory and a fmr. Soviet Satellite, so they would have old equipment and supplie, and also some means to develop their own technology.

Its not a lot but before you said: "THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", but then you said they supported 1/2 of 1%, so you just basically falsified your claim by yourself.

You people keep saying that Saddam and Reagan were allies they were not, the French and the Soviets supplied Iraq's armies we supplied 1/2 of 1% it's a non-issue.

 

[Middleground]

What are you freaking babbling about since when do the people vote to go to war, the congress votes and the congress gave twenty-three individual reasons of why they authorized military force against Saddam, what your reasons were or were not for supporting the war makes absolutely no difference what so ever. It was only after one of the reasons given for the war in Iraq was found to be based on faulty intelligence (this is also a falsification because WMD's were found) that the media focused on WMD in an effort to pin down the Bush administration on that one issue when in fact there were 23 individual reasons given for the war there were always 23 not just the one that the anti-war crowd trys to focus on.

Strike two.

I'm not sure if it's either I'm not making myself clear enough or that you're refusing to see my point for whatever reason.

Let me try this again, and hopfully I can make some headway. By the way, thanks for inserting a period smack in the middle of your paragraph. You're making progress.

First and formost, I'm completely aware that congress does the voting. So I'm with you on that one. However, they did not decide to come to that conclusion alone, right? I'm not American, so bear with me on this. It was the President and/or someone in his Administration that made the case to congress, right? And it would not be a stretch to say that it was the President and his Administration who actually scripted the case to war, with exception to perhaps a few amendments brought on by some of the congressmen? Am I correct so far?

If I am, I'm being presumtious and moving ahead here. If the President and his Administration had come forth -- in the wake of 9/11 -- solely with the point of humanitarian relief:

a) Would the American people of supported the proposal?
b) Would congress of supported the proposal?

Now I would think that both points are intertwined because, really, the members of Congress are representatives of the people, right? And wouldn't you say that the President and his Administration are representatives of the people, too? After all, they were elected by the people to represent them, no? So if these elected representatives make unpopular decisions -- decisions in which a majority of the people disagree -- would that not be political suicide? Perhaps you'd prefer idiotic?

Hopefully now we're on the same wavelength with the above and this is where we come to my original point. The humanitarian point was thrown it there just for the sake of throwing it in. This war was not sold on that aspect one iota... it was WMDs and "Saddam is a bad bad man." Bush is not a bright man, but he's smart enough to know that he needed the backing of his country. And when no weapons were found, well then, that's when they played the humanitarian card. You gotta do what you gotta do when your back is against the wall.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Strike two.

I'm not sure if it's either I'm not making myself clear enough or that you're refusing to see my point for whatever reason.

Let me try this again, and hopfully I can make some headway. By the way, thanks for inserting a period smack in the middle of your paragraph. You're making progress.

First and formost, I'm completely aware that congress does the voting. So I'm with you on that one. However, they did not decide to come to that conclusion alone, right? I'm not American, so bear with me on this. It was the President and/or someone in his Administration that made the case to congress, right? And it would not be a stretch to say that it was the President and his Administration who actually scripted the case to war, with exception to perhaps a few amendments brought on by some of the congressmen? Am I correct so far?

No the congress declares war. The president did ask for permission but the congress didn't have to give it to him, congress had all the intelligence that the president had and they came to the same conclusion as him.

If I am, I'm being presumtious and moving ahead here. If the President and his Administration had come forth -- in the wake of 9/11 -- solely with the point of humanitarian relief:

a) Would the American people of supported the proposal?

Irrelevant that's what are elected officials are for.

b) Would congress of supported the proposal?

Yes they had access to the same intel as the president, they did support the proposal that's why they freaking voted for it, the time to debate the war is not after you already voted for it and the troops are in harms way the time to debate it is before they grant the war powers to the president. If congress had reservations about the war in Iraq they damn sure should have made them known before they sent our troops into battle. Ever hear the expression politics ends at the waters edge?

Now I would think that both points are intertwined because, really, the members of Congress are representatives of the people, right? And wouldn't you say that the President and his Administration are representatives of the people, too? After all, they were elected by the people to represent them, no? So if these elected representatives make unpopular decisions -- decisions in which a majority of the people disagree -- would that not be political suicide? Perhaps you'd prefer idiotic?

This is why you have elected officials because the American people are fickle, they love to play Monday morning quarterback, and they have the attention spans of the average 4 year old watching sponge bob square pants. You elect the president and the congress because you entrust them to make the tuff decisions it's called resolve dammit.

Hopefully now we're on the same wavelength with the above and this is where we come to my original point. The humanitarian point was thrown it there just for the sake of throwing it in. This war was not sold on that aspect one iota... it was WMDs and "Saddam is a bad bad man." Bush is not a bright man, but he's smart enough to know that he needed the backing of his country. And when no weapons were found, well then, that's when they played the humanitarian card. You gotta do what you gotta do when your back is against the wall.

No sir the point of Saddam's genocide and attrocities were made abundantly clear to the American people, the gassing of the Kurds, torture chambers, etc. It wasn't thrown in for the sake of being thrown in it was one of the main reasons for ousting that miserable bastard Saddam.

 

[MSgt]

Hmmmmm....to get back on topic....

Some of our tactics being employed is through IO warfare. So far, Radical Islam has been winning on this front via savvy use of Radical Islamic print, radio, television and Internet sources. When the media reveals to the world that Marines are using Muslim Clerics to voice to Muslim people on the good intentions of America, it is labeled as "propaganda" and they are hurting our attempts to counteract this very powerful tool being used by our enemy to recruit the futureless and misguided youth. This is the kind of thing that our media would blow up and hurt us in the name of "truth" and oh the political garbage that would go with such a revealing "scandel."

We are "indirectly" supporting moderate voices within Islam. We have given the moderate Islamic leaders a voice. We are attempting to counter Al-Jazeera and like Radical Islamic media without appearing to do so. Radical Islam accounts for 1% to 20% of Islam. That's between 12 and 150 million people. Not all Radical Muslims carry guns or strap bombs to themselves. The majority of Radical Muslims act as the "sea within which the Radical Islamist terrorists swim." Moderate Islam is demanding, but peaceful and is tolerant of other sects and other religions. This group accounts for about 80 to 99 percent of Islam. We must have them on our side to purge the Radical element, but we can't appear to be "pulling strings" and we cannot be "public" about much of our support for fear of alienating the groups that do not want American (infidel) help (like Syrians, Iraqi Sunni, Iranian Shi'ites, and Saudi Arabs). In the end..the only thing that will fix the Muslim world is Muslims.

We are continuing to try to garner worldwide support for this effort and at least engage in the IO war with us. This has been difficult and President Bush has made mistakes along the way with this effort, but in his defense...this sort of thing isn't exactly written in an instruction book. No clash of civilizations has ever been in such a crisis as what we are witness to today. So far, much of the world has not even identified the threats involved and some of the world is ignoring it. Despite having German, British, Belgium, Polish, and other international military and "other" help, we are very much alone as we are countering something that poses as a long term threat that will exponentially grow with time. We have to take the lumps now or we will face something greater in the future. Imagine a future where "9/11s" are happening all of the time.

There is a connection between ongoing events in Bosnia, the "non-existence" of prison camps in Europe, the spy network, and local governments in numerous allied and not so allied countries. There has been countless would be terrorists followed and captured in countries all over the world. These terrorists are allowed to travel to their destinations, because they lead our intel world to other terrorists and to any plots and to more intel.

There is so much of a bigger picture going on, but to reveal it to the public in all of it's "truthfulness" would greatly hinder our tactics and reveal to the enemy that their secrets are not so secret. If they could find out all that we are doing and how and where we are doing it....they would simply shift to different locals and shift tactics. Then we would be at square one all over again. Remember...our enemies have a whole world to hide in and a world full of targets. We have to do the things necessary to make sure they are still in our vision. When facing International TV cameras...the President has to defend ongoing projects and keep the integrity of current operations all over the world. He has a choice....Reveal all or "lie." When reflecting on the greatest responsibility any man can ever hold he must do what is necessary.

 

[steen]

THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a lamo lie. US supported Saddam through Rumsfeld a.o. when it looked like Iran might win their war.

Oh, that's right, rummie was never in Iraq and never met Saddam during their war, right? Your repugnican spin-lies are getting tiresome.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What a lamo lie. US supported Saddam through Rumsfeld a.o. when it looked like Iran might win their war.

Oh, that's right, rummie was never in Iraq and never met Saddam during their war, right? Your repugnican spin-lies are getting tiresome.

Rumsfeld wasn't even holding public office at the time he was still in the private sector.

Besides that fact I've seen JFK shaking hands with Kruschev, that does not make them allies that's called diplomacy,

**** I'm sure if met you I'd even shake your hand out of politeness don't infer that that means we're friends.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's official, Bush lied-people died!

So...how many people died when Clinton lied about Iraq?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Besides that fact I've seen JFK shaking hands with Kruschev, that does not make them allies that's called diplomacy,

FDR shook hands with Stalin, too.

 

[The Real McCoy]

So...how many people died when Clinton lied about Iraq?

Don't forget about the "lies" of Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Edwards, Durbin, Reid, Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Schumer and plenty of other democratic senators and representatives. There's also the "lies" of Gore, Cohen, Albright, and others in Clinton's administration. Oh yea, and the "lies" from French, Dutch, German, Russian and other foreign intelligence agencies.

 

[26 X World Champs]

LMFAO god I love it when the left trys to rewrite history:

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

Hmmm...a nice long post...how about a nice short letter from President Douche Bag to Congress on March 13, 2003?

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Seems to me that Commrade Bush stated that Iraq was an immediate threat to the USA AND that attacking Iraq was justified because they were gingriching Al Quaeda.

Too damn bad that neither official reason written by Cro-Magnum Man, err Bush were true! All untruths, all inaccurate, all phoney.

What I posted is the official government reasons for our invasion of Iraq. All of it was bullshit. You can write whatever spin you want, make out your little man to be some sort of higher power but the facts are clear and present, Bush either lied to all of us or he's dumber than dumb and lacked/lacks the congnitive ability to understand the facts, kind of like some of the posters in this community. Kindred spirits?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Hmmm...a nice long post...how about a nice short letter from President Douche Bag to Congress on March 13, 2003?

Seems to me that Commrade Bush stated that Iraq was an immediate threat to the USA AND that attacking Iraq was justified because they were gingriching Al Quaeda.

Too damn bad that neither official reason written by Cro-Magnum Man, err Bush were true! All untruths, all inaccurate, all phoney.

What I posted is the official government reasons for our invasion of Iraq. All of it was bullshit. You can write whatever spin you want, make out your little man to be some sort of higher power but the facts are clear and present, Bush either lied to all of us or he's dumber than dumb and lacked/lacks the congnitive ability to understand the facts, kind of like some of the posters in this community. Kindred spirits?

Congradulations, you have the ability to look at the situation in retrospect. Hindsight being 20/20, anyone with a double digit IQ can see they weren't an imminent threat NOW. Unfortunately, our President wasnt born with the ability to see the future nor does he possess a crystal ball. The fact that there were no WMDs does NOT mean Bush lied about it. You can put all the left-wing spin on it that you want and cough up propaganda claiming he ignored intelligence to the contrary but the fact remains, before we invaded Iraq the intelligence was overwhlming that Hussein did, in fact, have WMDs and posed a threat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seems to me that Commrade Bush stated that Iraq was an immediate threat to the USA AND that attacking Iraq was justified because they were gingriching Al Quaeda.

Thats because you start with "I hate Bush" and work backwards.

If you actually READ the statement, you'll see that neither of your claims hold water.

But, seeing as you;re happy to do little but level personal attacks at Bush, asking you to read what's actually said and try to respond to it is too much.