ProudAmerican
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,694
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
goobieman,
are you able to receive private messages here?
are you able to receive private messages here?
ProudAmerican said:Irie ,
do me a favor and go dig up the speeches given by Albright, Berger, Ritter, Kerry, Dascle, and Fienstien.
Im gonna use this stuff in future debates. Your help is greatly appreciated.
![]()
It's right there in my sig.Originally Posted by Goobieman
In order for Bush to have lied, as you claim, he had to have "known: that the statements we made were not true.
Show that he knew this.
Billo_Really said:It's right there in my sig.
In reality though Billo, the N/ger disinformation was tangential to but not one of the core reasons for intervention. Even without WMD, Iraq and the world are much better off without Saddam and the fascist Ba'ath Party.Billo_Really said:It's right there in my sig.
And if you think it doesn't, no wonder you are the same.Originally posted by Goobieman:
If that constitutes "proof" in your mind, it's no wonder you are the way you are.
Did you lie about UNSCR1441 and HR114, or where you just wrong?And when you make the case that Iraq was a threat to the United States, that is also a lie!
Tell me, in specific terms how someone that "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-N.i.g.e.r deal were forgeries." proves Bush's claim was fradulent.Finally, my sig proves he new the "uranium tubes" story was fraudulent, but went ahead with it anyway. Just like it was stated in DSM.
Tashah said:In reality though Billo, the N/ger disinformation was tangential to but not one of the core reasons for intervention. Even without WMD, Iraq and the world are much better off without Saddam and the fascist Ba'ath Party.
the Democrats like to push and they LOVE people like you who ask questions without knowing the whole truth.Lachean said:Its the "before he started" part....
Secularist doesn't equate to harmless. Iraq was unstable even under Saddam's control. The mass graves at Abu Ghraib, al-Hillah and Halabja serve as grisly reminders that both Iraq and Saddam were internally unstable. The Iraqi Mukahbarat (Security Service) was involved in training foreign terrorists at its Salman Pak facility. Saddam also supported and protected the al-Ansar terrorist organization which is strongly affiliated with al-Qa'ida.Iriemon said:That will remain to be seen. With Hussein there was a neutralized petty tyrant, who like to goad the US to improve his image as standing up to the great indifel leader. But he was not a radical Islamist, was relatively secular, and Iraq was at least stable.
Now we have an Iraq that is destabilized, in civil war, held together by the presence of 125,000 US troops that are costing US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. You have a magnet for Al-Queda converts and other radicals converving in Iraq. You have separatists and radicals vying for control of the country. There has been a tremendous explosion of terrorist activity in the country and the war is imflaming radical Islam. Scores of thousands are dead, many times more maimed. The world is a more dangerous place. I'm not so sure the US is better off at all, much less much better off, or will be in the long run.
Tashah said:Secularist doesn't equate to harmless. Iraq was unstable even under Saddam's control. The mass graves at Abu Ghraib, al-Hillah and Halabja serve as grisly reminders that both Iraq and Saddam were internally unstable. The Iraqi Mukahbarat (Security Service) was involved in training foreign terrorists at its Salman Pak facility. Saddam also supported and protected the al-Ansar terrorist organization which is strongly affiliated with al-Qa'ida.
The overwhelming preponderance of Iraqi's are overjoyed that Saddam's tyranny is now relegated to the ash-heap of history. The 'insurgency' is composed of hard-core Ba'athists, foreign Islamicists like al-Zarqawi, and an unknown number of the 100,000 criminals Saddam released from prison just prior to the invasion. Common sense tells us that it is better to engage these enemies in a known theater of operations rather than try to hunt them down on a global scale.
The cost of the war is indeed high in blood and money, but nowhere near the bloody and economic costs of unfettered terrorist attacks in the homeland.
September 11 is testament that the world was a dangerous place long before US intervention in Iraq. Since the invasion, rogue nations such as Syria, Sudan, and Libya have modified their behavior.
Hiding one's head in the sand is temporarily comforting, but it is a faux comfort. Islamist fanaticism and terrorism would only be emboldened and even more dangerous if the US withdrew into isolationism. Much like Nazism and Stalinist communism, it is necessary and incumbent for the US to engage Islamist terrorism well before it arrives in force at the threshold.
DiavoTheMiavo said:I am really suprised they have not found any, and I am sure that at some point in time they will find some buried in an old bunker or something.
DiavoTheMiavo said:My Opinion; Saddam had WMD, Saddam used WMD against the Iranians and his own people, Saddam was a Bad Bad Man, and I thought they would find the generic WMD. I am really suprised they have not found any, and I am sure that at some point in time they will find some buried in an old bunker or something. I was one of those rare people who thought that it wasn't about the WMD----It was about the urgency of the threat. The Threat level introduced by our government suggested that Saddam was at least an "Urgent" Threat, if not imminent.
The fact of the matter is that if he had them or did not have does not MATTER. We are in Iraq right now, debating why we got there is no longer an issue.
You see, no one is going to talk me out of believing that the greatest threat to the world in March 2003 was not Iraq. It was another country whose human rights violations are almost a kept secret in America, and its connections to those who would hurt us are much greater than Saddam would or could ever be. Alas, they have no oil, and they could fight back.
Did you lie about UNSCR1441 and HR114, or where you just wrong?
ProudAmerican said:ohhh thats gonna leave a mark!!!!
Iriemon said:How was Iraq an "urgent" if not imminent threat to the US if he didn't have WMD?
It does matter, because most the world thinks we invaded on false pretext. It affects our credibility in everything we do in Iraq and the ME.
Huh? ARe you talking about Saudi Arabia?
Iriemon said:Another member of the "Mark Gastineau debate society" chimes in.
I thought I already answered this. How much longer are you going to act like a kid in a playground?Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
i noticed he never responded to it. maybe you would like to do it for him.
you think he was lying? or just wrong?
easyt65 said:But, as I pointed out, they have already found some of the WMD. Cannisters filled with chemical and biological agents reportedly having already been destroyed was found in Iraq bunkers, just not in the hundreds of thousands. Sarin gas was found, but again, it was reported as the 'wrong gas' or not in enough quantity, even though there was enough found to kill thousands. The Marines found those tons of yellow cake uranium in baghdad when they rolled in. The UK Special ops guys stopped the nuclear material going into Iran.......There HAS been some material found.....just never enough or the worng type for the Bush-bashers.
I agree with you on the threat Hussein posed.
Billo_Really said:I thought I already answered this. How much longer are you going to act like a kid in a playground?
Have you ever tried to help? Have you ever tried to do anything good? Or are you one of those punks who like to throw gasoline on a fire?Originally posted by Goobieman:
You already answered it?
You were...wrong?
YOU make a statement based on flawed information and you're "wrong"
GWB makes a statement based on flawed information and he "lied".
How does that work?
now that would be the equivalent to what Bush did. And that would be a lie, mis-representation of the truth or whatever you want to call deceit."Hey, 1441 is not in HR114, and therefore, HR114 is not authorization from the UN..."
Wishful thinking. How are we any better off by your comment?Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
ohhh thats gonna leave a mark!!!!
Any theater of war or conflict is unstable. Just this past week armed elements of Fatah and Hamas were openly shooting at each other in Palestine, another unstable country.Iriemon said:I didn't say he was harmless. Iraq was and has been inherently unstable, I agree. It is more unstable now.
I highly doubt the Iraqi Mukhabarat was using a passenger jet fuselage to train flight attendants at Salman Pak. What abour the al-Ansar? US forces found evidence (dead animals in cages) that chemical weapons experiments were conducted by this terrorist organization east of Sulaymaniyah.Iriemon said:The evidence on Salman Pak I've seen is sketchy. The US govt was quite, but there the reports that after the invasion based on inspection by US intellegence was that there was no evidence that it was being used to train terrorists. Someone posted something to the contrary more recently, I haven't investigate that.
Show me any viable citation which states that it was US policy to foment or encourage an Iraqi insurgency. You are confusing an insurgency (mostly foreign) dedicated to grab power by force and defeat Iraq's march to democracy with an all-inclusive grass-roots Iraqi revolt against democracy and the US. Clearly, the latter is not the case. No amount of military forces would suffice to quell an insurgency composed of the entire Iraqi populace.Iriemon said:I don't necessarily agree. Hussein was a bad guy; but the blood was on his hands. We have gone in and started a civil/terrorist campaign in the country that arguably is killing Iraqis as fast as they were dying under Hussein. But now the blood is on our hands, and we are getting the blame.
You are extrapolating from just one homeland terrorist event. Every C-T expert agrees that just one homeland terrorist attack with a dirty bomb or weaponized virus would incur monumental human and economic consequences.Iriemon said:Maybe. US casualties from the Iraq war are about 7x higher than from 9-11, the number of US deaths will be higher in a few months. The blood from the overall dead is many multiple times higher than 9-11. The economic costs of the war is far higher.
Although there exists (as of today) no direct link between Iraq and al-Qa'ida, Iraq posed the same strategic problem then as Iran poses today... possible WMD proliferation to non-state agents. To say today that Iraq possessed no WMD is disingenuous because no one knew that with certainty before the invasion. Hindsight is always 20/20 and convenient.Iriemon said:Plus there is no evidence I have seen that Iraq was ever implicated in a terrorist attack against the US, or was ever directly implicated in any terrorist attack, that I am aware of. So I don't see the connection between invading Iraq and the costs of attacks on the US.
I don't think the invasion per se was a mistake. The invasion itself was a tremendous success in both the strategic and tactical spheres. Where the US failed was in planning post-invasion strategy and necessities. Clearly, the DoD underestimated what would be required to occupy and stabilize a country of 25 million people the size of California. This failure in linnear planning was the genesis and catalyst of the situation that exists today.Iriemon said:War is not always the best answer, and not always the answer at all. The idea that because the US made a mistake invading Iraq we have to stay there indefinitely to save face is a path toward greater blood and destruction.
That invasion was not only illegal according to International Law, it has completely destroyed US credibility throughout the world. We attacked a country that did nothing to us. Doesn't anyone see just how wrong that is? By attacking Iraq, we have de-stabilized the entire world. Now Russia is talking about arming up. They signed a defense pact with China. You can't tell me that we weren't the driving force behind that.Originally posted by Tashah:
I don't think the invasion per se was a mistake. The invasion itself was a tremendous success in both the strategic and tactical spheres. Where the US failed was in planning post-invasion strategy and necessities. Clearly, the DoD underestimated what would be required to occupy and stabilize a country of 25 million people the size of California. This failure in linnear planning was the genesis and catalyst of the situation that exists today.