The War President

[stsburns]

I'm not sure why Harry Truman came up twice. But of all the Presidents on this list, the last entry is the only one who lied to become a War President!

Image removed by Pacridge. Inappropriate.

Billo your out of control! But its nice to see how you believe political propaganda! Now everyone can take advantage of that! :lol:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by stsburns:
Billo your out of control! But its nice to see how you believe political propaganda! Now everyone can take advantage of that!

Not nice to see how you can defend someone like this! The sky is not falling chicken-little. Yet you still buy in to all his terror hype!

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet
Posted on June 27, 2003, Printed on August 2, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

There is a small somber box that appears in the New York Times every day. Titled simply "Killed in Iraq," it lists the names and military affiliations of those who most recently died on tour of duty. Wednesday's edition listed just one name: Orenthial J. Smith, age 21, of Allendale, South Carolina.

The young, late O.J. Smith was almost certainly named after the legendary running back, Orenthal J. Simpson, before that dashing American hero was charged for a double-murder. Now his namesake has died in far-off Mesopotamia in a noble mission to, as our president put it on March 19, "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Today, more than three months after Bush's stirring declaration of war and nearly two months since he declared victory, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found, nor any documentation of their existence, nor any sign they were deployed in the field.

The mainstream press, after an astonishing two years of cowardice, is belatedly drawing attention to the unconscionable level of administrative deception. They seem surprised to find that when it comes to Iraq, the Bush administration isn't prone to the occasional lie of expediency but, in fact, almost never told the truth.

What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."

Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

And neither did we.

© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

 

[Pacridge]

Overall, I think Kennedy was good, but he was gone before I was born, so I can only go by what I've read or seen...

One problem I do have though...The Cuban Missile Crisis...

If the Soviet Union didn't back down from Kennedy, he would have started a war that, most likely, would have killed millions of Americans, with the possibility of a worldwide nuclear winter.

Is this True or False?...Are there other factors involved?

I know about the pictures...But a US President telling another sovereign country(Soviet Union) not to do something? Or else? I didn't see the Soviet Union making threats or demands that we leave Eastern Europe at the same time...

It is very complicated. Like most things in life it isn't black and white. Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good read if you're interested.

And actually I think if you look into the USSR was trying very hard to get us to pull out of Eastern Europe.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

Do you go through your whole life without referencing anything? I want evidence, from you. Until then, I'm dismissing everything you say as unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Very Well, if I have to do the reading for both of us....
Try "Pearl Harbor: The Story Of the Secret War"
This book states almost a concrete case that Roosevelt and his cabinet not only knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor (As early as Nov 25th, 1941), but also provoked Japan to attack by imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions. This book has many interviews with people in high office & in high ranks in the military at that time....they all concur with the authors findings.... Of course this will probably just be seen as "published unsubstantiated rhetoric", but let me know & I'll list some more reading for you.:lol:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ILikeDubyah:
Very Well, if I have to do the reading for both of us....
Try "Pearl Harbor: The Story Of the Secret War"
This book states almost a concrete case that Roosevelt and his cabinet not only knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor (As early as Nov 25th, 1941), but also provoked Japan to attack by imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions. This book has many interviews with people in high office & in high ranks in the military at that time....they all concur with the authors findings.... Of course this will probably just be seen as "published unsubstantiated rhetoric", but let me know & I'll list some more reading for you.

This is true.

 

[SMIRKnCHIMP]

Why did manifest destiny have to stop at the Pacific??? The more countries you invade & occupy, the more natural resources you gain, the more money you gain, etc, etc, etc....Why is it that the most powerful country on Earth has to look to the ****-ant countries for acceptance? They don't like us, too bad, we control 75% of the world's nukes....test us.
I totally disagree with you. I think that if Bushy were able to do his job without all of the bleeding heart liberals whining in all directions, this war would have been over years ago....He would have just bombed the crap out of them from the git-go, not caring who he hit, and looking back, I think that would have been a great strategy. If no one was on our side to begin with, we wouldn't have had to care about ******* anyone more off. Liberals and human rights activists are to blame for the ongoing war....you hear it on the news every day about how some "innocent" person was killed.....FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS & YOU WON"T BE KILLED! And as for human rights, what about the human rights of those n the WTC, Pentagon, & PA. on Sept. 11th, Moo-hamad didn't seem to take those into consideration. (I'm not saying that ALL Muslims are bad, but as we can see from the ongoing war, it's sure hard to weed out the sane ones.) Put it in to their terms...Hamurabi's code...an eye for an eye.....we have free pass for about 3000 civilians that we can kill.

A WARRIOR like yourself need only ENLIST to back up your bold talk...fight for the causes you expouse.

Or you can remain a chickenhawk like the rest of the Republicans.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Very Well, if I have to do the reading for both of us....
Try "Pearl Harbor: The Story Of the Secret War"
This book states almost a concrete case that Roosevelt and his cabinet not only knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor (As early as Nov 25th, 1941), but also provoked Japan to attack by imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions. This book has many interviews with people in high office & in high ranks in the military at that time....they all concur with the authors findings.... Of course this will probably just be seen as "published unsubstantiated rhetoric", but let me know & I'll list some more reading for you.:lol:

Provoking someone to attack you, which as well makes you seemingly innocent is a perfect tactic to get the enlistment numbers higher. Though Pearl Harbor was a very very sad event, it was needed in order to assure that we'd get enough military men (with training) to do battle against Japan, Germany, and Italy.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

A WARRIOR like yourself need only ENLIST to back up your bold talk...fight for the causes you expouse.

Or you can remain a chickenhawk like the rest of the Republicans.

1) 3 out of 4 people serving in the military today consider themselves republican/conservative...chicken hawks, I think not. the 4th is a democrat, and probably only joined in the first place because they thought they were going to get free education....I can't believe people would join soley for that reason.

2) Republicans are needed at home too, to protect the economy & keep domestic affairs free from meddling by democrats.

(I'm not a republican, as most of them are too liberal for my taste.)

 

[ILikeDubyah]

Provoking someone to attack you, which as well makes you seemingly innocent is a perfect tactic to get the enlistment numbers higher. Though Pearl Harbor was a very very sad event, it was needed in order to assure that we'd get enough military men (with training) to do battle against Japan, Germany, and Italy.

And considering 45% of the soldiers that fought in WWII were drafted , I don't think it was worth waiting until we were attacked to have people sign up. I think if we would have declared war beforehand, just as many men would have enlisted.

 

[saveChief]

I was just introduced to this website yesterday by a friend who warned me that some of the people who post in the forums simply lack any type of human conscientiousness.
ILikeDubyah you are the epitome of one such person. Though you obviously try to sound intellectually educated by quoting what percentage of soldiers who fought in WWII were drafted or what some conspiracy theory book said about Pearl Harbor, you exhibit such a magnificent lack of moral integrity that I decided to dedicate my virgin post on this website to you.
What kind of world would we live in if everyone had the same "eye for an eye"/kill the heathens attitude as you? If it is okay, as you imply, for us to go and bomb the hell out of some innocent Afghani villages, slaughtering hundreds of people just because one or two of them might be...gasp.... "enemies", what then does that make us? The righteous avengers? The hand of justice? "They owed us one". What the hell kind of logic is that? The day that your reasoning becomes reality is the day that the world dies. Pretty soon after those villages are bombed, someone will come seeking revenge upon this country. Now it is their turn to come seeking an eye for an eye. It is not long before no one has any eyes left to give. That beating-into-submission logic might have worked in feudal times when the abused had almost no means of affecting the abusers. But we live in a new era. Now even one person can pick up an assault rifle, or strap a bomb to their chest and wreak havoc on the world. I don't care about the details of who will win a nuclear war or what the final state of the world might be. I honestly don't think you can even begin to imagine how much horrible damage even one warhead can cause. To assume that just because we have the capability of inflicting massive amounts of pain and suffering it is okay to do so is just sick. I know that these words will probably stay in your mind for as long as it takes you to read and respond to this post, but that isn't because I am out of line or being unreasonable. It is because, despite all of the books and articles and research you have done, you lack something that this world needs more of: common sense and moral dignity.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

My response is in purple....enjoy, and welcome to Debate Politics=)

I was just introduced to this website yesterday by a friend who warned me that some of the people who post in the forums simply lack any type of human conscientiousness.
ILikeDubyah you are the epitome of one such person. Though you obviously try to sound intellectually educated by quoting what percentage of soldiers who fought in WWII were drafted or what some conspiracy theory book said about Pearl Harbor, you exhibit such a magnificent lack of moral integrity that I decided to dedicate my virgin post on this website to you.

This post is not about me, it's about my opinions, So I'll explain those....and without bashing you.=)

What kind of world would we live in if everyone had the same "eye for an eye"/kill the heathens attitude as you? If it is okay, as you imply, for us to go and bomb the hell out of some innocent Afghani villages, slaughtering hundreds of people just because one or two of them might be...gasp.... "enemies", what then does that make us? The righteous avengers? The hand of justice? "They owed us one". What the hell kind of logic is that? The day that your reasoning becomes reality is the day that the world dies.

When I referenced "an eye for an eye", I was speaking of Hamurabi's code, which some middle eastern countries practice to this day...in one form or another. It was mainly to say that IF we had responded by killing 3000 innocent civilians, they should have seen it coming, and seen it as fair & just response...instead, we took the high road, and unfortunately are paying for doing so.

Pretty soon after those villages are bombed, someone will come seeking revenge upon this country. Now it is their turn to come seeking an eye for an eye. It is not long before no one has any eyes left to give. That beating-into-submission logic might have worked in feudal times when the abused had almost no means of affecting the abusers. But we live in a new era. Now even one person can pick up an assault rifle, or strap a bomb to their chest and wreak havoc on the world.

And how do we stop this from happening??? Close the ports & borders to all non US Citizens.... This country used to be about protecting the Lives, economy & interests of US CITIZENS, when did the rest of the world gain their citizenship?

I don't care about the details of who will win a nuclear war or what the final state of the world might be. I honestly don't think you can even begin to imagine how much horrible damage even one warhead can cause. To assume that just because we have the capability of inflicting massive amounts of pain and suffering it is okay to do so is just sick. I know that these words will probably stay in your mind for as long as it takes you to read and respond to this post, but that isn't because I am out of line or being unreasonable. It is because, despite all of the books and articles and research you have done, you lack something that this world needs more of: common sense and moral dignity.

Nuclear warheads....don't care, No established or rational country would ever use them (the US included), too much to lose. The only people you have to worry about when it comes to nukes are....the people we're hunting down & killing this very minute....interesting.

In the 4 years that this (physical) war has been going on, I've heard many people that thought like you change their tune, and now they're thinking like me...."if only we would have just blown them up at the start of this, the troops would already be home....instead they're sitting at checkpoints doing the Iraqi Army & police forces jobs, while being picked off one by one. The war was over in january when the Iraqi's elected their president, the only ties we have to them now are diplomatic.

As for your assumption as to how this post would be taken by me...I'm not like others who disregard the opinions of others , just because I believe my opinion is the correct one. I have changed my mind on other issues (Such as no child left behind, Thought it would be great for the country, turned out to be a bunch of bunk that puts all blame on the teacher, lets parents & children be as irresponsible as they want with the child's education, and yet they still get passed...sad, sad.) You won't change my mind on this issue though, not sorry to say=)

 

[saveChief]

Well I must say that I should apologize for the intensity of my post. I read your first post in this thread on the first page and it seemed quite careless and antagonistic. Your recent response had a much different tone, and I apologize for any personal references I might have made. However, back to the debate....

"And how do we stop this from happening??? Close the ports & borders to all non US Citizens.... This country used to be about protecting the Lives, economy & interests of US CITIZENS, when did the rest of the world gain their citizenship?"

One of the founding principles of this country, back when those great men met in Philadelphia for the construction of our longstanding Constitution, was that this country should be, as John Winthrop's "city on a hill" to Christianity, a land of freedom from oppression. One reason why this country is so special is the melting pot of cultures that form its core. The US has always been a major target for immigration, from the Protestants traveling from England in the 17th and 18th centuries, to the Irish escaping the devastating potato blight in the 1850s, to this very day. I do agree that notice and concern should be paid to who is allowed into the country. I also agree that more restrictions and deterrants should be placed on immigrants vying for citizenship. However, we must be careful not to stray too far from the "city on a hill" freedom path set by our forefathers.

And there really is no easy way to "blow them up at the start of this". The only way to do so would be to drop bombs on the ENTIRE country, regardless of who or what would be struck. Not such a good idea when you consider the number of oil wells on the surface, forget about the unbelievable massacre of innocents that would be slaughtered. Completely unwarranted slaughter of innocents.

I know many people who, opposite to wanting to have increased our military actions, wish that we never would have gotten involved in the first place. Remember the context of this war. What did the Iraqis do to warrant such strong and destructive tactics as you suggest? It's unnecessary to shoot your dog just because it craps on your floor.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

Well I must say that I should apologize for the intensity of my post. I read your first post in this thread on the first page and it seemed quite careless and antagonistic. Your recent response had a much different tone, and I apologize for any personal references I might have made. However, back to the debate....

"And how do we stop this from happening??? Close the ports & borders to all non US Citizens.... This country used to be about protecting the Lives, economy & interests of US CITIZENS, when did the rest of the world gain their citizenship?"

One of the founding principles of this country, back when those great men met in Philadelphia for the construction of our longstanding Constitution, was that this country should be, as John Winthrop's "city on a hill" to Christianity, a land of freedom from oppression. One reason why this country is so special is the melting pot of cultures that form its core. The US has always been a major target for immigration, from the Protestants traveling from England in the 17th and 18th centuries, to the Irish escaping the devastating potato blight in the 1850s, to this very day. I do agree that notice and concern should be paid to who is allowed into the country. I also agree that more restrictions and deterrants should be placed on immigrants vying for citizenship. However, we must be careful not to stray too far from the "city on a hill" freedom path set by our forefathers.

And there really is no easy way to "blow them up at the start of this". The only way to do so would be to drop bombs on the ENTIRE country, regardless of who or what would be struck. Not such a good idea when you consider the number of oil wells on the surface, forget about the unbelievable massacre of innocents that would be slaughtered. Completely unwarranted slaughter of innocents.

I know many people who, opposite to wanting to have increased our military actions, wish that we never would have gotten involved in the first place. Remember the context of this war. What did the Iraqis do to warrant such strong and destructive tactics as you suggest? It's unnecessary to shoot your dog just because it craps on your floor.

I should have been more clear. Afghanistan started before Iraq, and they're the ones that should have been bombed indiscriminately, as the base of operations for the leader of the Cell that killed out 3000 was here. (perhape if we had, Saddam may have complied,but that we'll never know. (Wasn't the taliban pretty centralized? If so, Bombing where ever they were holed up indiscriminately would have produced few civilian/Non-Taliban affiliated corpses, correct?

When talking about the founders of the country, you have to wonder if they would agree. Sure, they were for peace & freedom of all & all of that, but look at how different the world is today. As for deterrants...The first 167 miles of a 30 foot wall between US & Mexico have been slated for construction.....it's about time. (And not because of the mexicans coming here for work, they do the jobs no one wants to, are hard working, and are a backbone for the country....(except for the ones that come to sell drugs, form & join gangs & try to rape the US Citizens out of their tax dollars when it comes to health care & other issues.) I understand that most still see America as "the land of oppertunity", however, I don't think they should be able to take oppertunity away from people that are already here.

I believe that the constitution is too vague. The founders made the document changeable as the needs & times of the citizens changed...they should have been more specific, after all, it can be ammended

 

[saveChief]

I am for the wall between this country and Mexico in terms of realistic implications. I agree that too many miscreants make their way into this country illegally across that border and progressive steps are being taken to rectify the situation. But the idea of kind of blocking America off from the world kind of unsettles me. It may solve problems, it may even one day become necessary, but I still get a bad feeling in my gut about it... I don't know.

In terms of the constitution. I am pretty sure that its writers never could imagine the world as it is today. But I think it is the spirit, the idea (ideal) that embodies the constitution, that America is "the land of the free and the home of the brave" that I most steadfastly believe must be maintained. If we grow apart from this belief then we will be erasing one of the principles that separates how people view this country worldwide from how they view say Russia or France. America is looked up to by many as the "city on a hill" as i mentioned before. However, the number of those who bear that belief is dwindling as we continue our aggressive bullying tactics abroad. The international appreciation for this country, by even our historical allies, has declined dramatically. Maybe we would all be better off if our notorious president had "cooperation" in his vocabulary along with "nucular".

If the taliban had been grouped together, I am confident that site would have been bombed to oblivian, as it should have been. However I am dubious as to whether this was the case. The war in Afghanistan, although devoid of long term plans, was much more justified than that in Iraq. Plus when considering Saddam's history of not giving a deuce about aggressive outside interference, it is questionable at best that he would simply fold all of his power and possessions. The only way to get him off of his "throne" was going to be by invasion.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

I am for the wall between this country and Mexico in terms of realistic implications. I agree that too many miscreants make their way into this country illegally across that border and progressive steps are being taken to rectify the situation. But the idea of kind of blocking America off from the world kind of unsettles me. It may solve problems, it may even one day become necessary, but I still get a bad feeling in my gut about it... I don't know.

In terms of the constitution. I am pretty sure that its writers never could imagine the world as it is today. But I think it is the spirit, the idea (ideal) that embodies the constitution, that America is "the land of the free and the home of the brave" that I most steadfastly believe must be maintained. If we grow apart from this belief then we will be erasing one of the principles that separates how people view this country worldwide from how they view say Russia or France. America is looked up to by many as the "city on a hill" as i mentioned before. However, the number of those who bear that belief is dwindling as we continue our aggressive bullying tactics abroad. The international appreciation for this country, by even our historical allies, has declined dramatically. Maybe we would all be better off if our notorious president had "cooperation" in his vocabulary along with "nucular".

If the taliban had been grouped together, I am confident that site would have been bombed to oblivian, as it should have been. However I am dubious as to whether this was the case. The war in Afghanistan, although devoid of long term plans, was much more justified than that in Iraq. Plus when considering Saddam's history of not giving a deuce about aggressive outside interference, it is questionable at best that he would simply fold all of his power and possessions. The only way to get him off of his "throne" was going to be by invasion.

Your first post aside, I have to say that you're the most well spoken & civil person I'v e debated against on this site.:2razz: Will continue this later, as I'm off.

 

[zero18]

That may be one of the most disgusting and fascist posts I have ever read.

A free pass to kill civilians? What are you? A terrorist?

Hey, we did put that terrorist Allawi into power.

 

[kal-el]

Hey, we did put that terrorist Allawi into power.

Yea, Allawi is yet another puppet of Iraq's pro-America leadership that was put in place by the man himself. War president? O he has war experience alright, he ****en went AWOL, and his parents moved him so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. And he's a fantastic fighter pilot, it seems he has no problem posing for pictures on an aircraft carrier with fellow pilots, but after they die in his ficticious war, he won't even attend one of they're funerals. But he can attend Reinquist's? What a hypocrite.