- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
KidRocks said: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.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trajan Octavian Titus said: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 said: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 said: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?
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 said: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?
Comrade Brian said: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 said: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.
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.What's your point we supplied Iran with weapons
I never said that, implied, or will believe it, I just don't think they're pure enemies. Maybe you should quite twisting me.the fact of the matter is that you people would like to twist the notion that the U.S. was best buddies with Saddam
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.Iraq got the majority of his weapons from France and Russia
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.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 said: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 said: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.
Trajan Octavian Titus said: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.
Middleground said: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?
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?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?
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.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.
What a lamo lie. US supported Saddam through Rumsfeld a.o. when it looked like Iran might win their war.Trajan Octavian Titus said:THE U.S. DIDN'T SUPPORT SADDAM IN THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!!
steen said: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.
KidRocks said:It's official, Bush lied-people died!
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Besides that fact I've seen JFK shaking hands with Kruschev, that does not make them allies that's called diplomacy,
M14 Shooter said:So...how many people died when Clinton lied about Iraq?
Hmmm...a nice long post...how about a nice short letter from President Douche Bag to Congress on March 13, 2003?Trajan Octavian Titus said: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
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.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
26 X World Champs said: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?
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.
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?