White-Flag-Waving Democrats Are Shameless on Iraq War

What about the other "spade"? The military plan for phase out of personnel is remarkably similar to the Democratic Party's plan.
Must be a co-incidence. I'm sure that the fact that it reduces troop levels to maybe 50K by the end of 2007, in time to have a real affect on the 2008 elections, is purely co-incidence.

There are also quite a few instances that the Republicans haven't been interested in fighting tyranny. The Serbs raping and killing anybody that wasn't one of them is an example.

No, he is interested in pointing out the faults of one party while ignoring that of the other. Maybe that article just wasn't linked.
 
Earnest,
I can't believe you're still clinging to that. :rolleyes:
Those WMDs were no longer capable of causing "M" "D" nor even of being used as "W"s. It's all ancient pre-gulf war crap.

You have deadlier stuff in your fridge. Maybe we should invade your house next....:rolleyes:
Moreover, they weren't new or unknown about. This is all the stuff America didn't buy as WMDs before, just pushed together in a pile. It's feeble and desperate. And more than a little pathetic.
 
Wikipedia
Sarin, also known by its NATO designation of GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extremely toxic substance whose sole application is as a nerve agent. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

Mustard agents, including sulfur mustard, are regulated under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Three classes of chemicals are monitored under this Convention, with sulfur and nitrogen mustard grouped in the highest risk class, "schedule 1".
Click to expand...

Those WMDs were no longer capable of causing "M" "D" nor even of being used as "W"s. It's all ancient pre-gulf war crap.
Click to expand...

You can use the found munitions for a door stop...I'll pass.

The reason we went to Iraq is because Saddam refused to abide by a cease fire agreement for 12 years.

The reason we went to Iraq is because none of our law makers, Democrat or Republican, wanted to risk the lives of Americans, or their political career on whether or not Saddam would sponsor a terrorist attack against Americans.

The reason we went to Iraq was because like UBL Saddam made repeated threats against America and its interests.

Must we wait until thousands are dead then retaliate?

Ask yourself this question. Put yourself back to the months before the Iraq invasion. Were you willing to bet the lives of your loved ones that Saddam would not plan or sponsor a chemical/biological or other attack on US soil? Remember hind sight is 20/20. I was not willing to make that bet at the time nor were most of the members of either party.

The "Democracy overnight" crowd need only look at the history of Democratic nations to find this is not a fast process. It took 150+/- years here in America just to get a handle on corruption, lawlessness, and anarchy. Some may claim these things are still not in check.


It also shows why they must be eliminated from the face of the earth. They are a species with which civilized mankind cannot co-exist. During the Civil War when Gen. T.J. (Stonewall) Jackson was asked how to deal with the enemy, he had a simple answer: "Kill 'em; kill 'em all."
Click to expand...

There are those here who disagree with killing terrorists...all of them?:rolleyes:
 
The reason we went to Iraq is because Saddam refused to abide by a cease fire agreement for 12 years.

The reason we went to Iraq is because none of our law makers, Democrat or Republican, wanted to risk the lives of Americans, or their political career on whether or not Saddam would sponsor a terrorist attack against Americans.

The reason we went to Iraq was because like UBL Saddam made repeated threats against America and its interests.
Click to expand...

Funny, I distinctly recall the reasons given by Da Prez:

-Saddam is bad. BFD, the world is full of sociopathic heads of state.

-Saddam supports terrorism. First, that has never been proven, and second, see above.

-Saddam has WMDs. Again, BFD. So do we. So does England. So does France! :eek:

All of the original reasons we were given for this war of aggression* have proven to be either lies or irrelevant. Yeah, Saddam (and especially his kids) are evil, but it's not our job to enforce morality at gunpoint.

*: We attacked a sovereign nation and overthrew their government, without direct provocation. HORRAY DEMOCRACY! :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by pipoman
There are those here who disagree with killing terrorists...all of them?
Click to expand...

Not from were I'm standanding, brother.

originally Posted by Coinneach
*: We attacked a sovereign nation and overthrew their government, without direct provocation. HORRAY DEMOCRACY!
Click to expand...

No, we overthrew a murderous dictator who gased is own people. And he hates us. Or would it have been better to have waited to see what he had in store for us? I was part of the unit that found the mass graves in Hatra. Over 2000 Kruds taken out into the desert and shot. They had been out there for a while. Bones, hair and badly decomposed clothes, but enough to tell male from female. See that many dead women and children and you would be singing a different tune. We did find a huge WMD, Saddam himself.
 
If you're gonna talk numbers, perhaps you can explain why we didn't attack the Soviet Union (20,000,000 murdered by Stalin) or China (15,000,000 murdered by Mao). Or Cambodia. Or Somalia. Or any of the other countries in which massacres happen every single day.

Trying to justify our invasion and occupation of Iraq, when there is far greater evil in the world, is weak. Saddam is/was, in the overall scheme, a whining little pusbag. His existence doesn't justify the loss of 2,500 American soldiers. No, you can preach all you want about Our! Noble! Goals!, but they don't make sense.
 
Ask yourself this question. Put yourself back to the months before the Iraq invasion. Were you willing to bet the lives of your loved ones that Saddam would not plan or sponsor a chemical/biological or other attack on US soil? Remember hind sight is 20/20. I was not willing to make that bet at the time nor were most of the members of either party.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was. I was firmly convinced that Saddam had not suddenly mutated into any kind of threat. We had bigger fish to fry at the time and he ranked pretty low. I was pretty despondent about the obvious waste of capital in this adventure and I'm a little peeved that things turned out like I'd figured they would.

If you want to attack a country that's willing to place WMDs (*real* WMDs, not rusty useless cans) in the hands of terrorists (a country with a real working relationship with terrorists)...if you want to re-shape the M. E. by overturning a radical theocracy (not a secular dictatorship) while avoiding leaving the door open to a new Caliphate, IRAQ is the wrong country! Iran is who you should be worried about, and now thanks to this misguided little adventure we can't do a thing about them.

Short version: Saddam didn't scare me. TBT, terrorists never really scared me either.
 
We have sat still through Darfur - where is the outrage? Where are the GOP supporters demanding a massive intervention there? What about the children?

Anybody remember the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? Anybody up for the launching of the invasion of Syria - Assad family is equally murderous.

Let's have some thought here and not mindless loyalty.

The only reason to invade Iraq was to benefit the USA. There were several reasons:

1. They were a WMD threat to us. They weren't.
2. They directly supported the 9/11 attack - they didn't.
3. We thought the Iraqis would become a center piece of democracy and institute change - the neocon theory - that remains to be seen but it ain't looking good right now.

Bush has let North Korea and Iran come to the brink of nuclear weapons and so far looks ineffective at dealing with them. Where's the outrage from his supporters over this manifest failure?
 
There were several reasons:

1. They were a WMD threat to us. They weren't.
2. They directly supported the 9/11 attack - they didn't.
3. We thought the Iraqis would become a center piece of democracy and institute change - the neocon theory - that remains to be seen but it ain't looking good right now.
Click to expand...

Hi Glen,

1. Will you agree that every member of the UN Security Council voted in agreement in November 2002 that Saddam had and continued to produce WMD?

Resolution 1441

As I said earlier hind sight is 20/20.

2. Please produce or direct me to one transcript of any speech given by the President during the run up to the Iraq invasion where he stated Iraq was directly related to the 9/11 attacks.

On the contrary. Revising history does not make the truth any less the truth

3. I really don't understand the philosophy that some believe Iraq should magically evolve into a thriving Democracy in less time than has ever been accomplished in the history of democracy.


Let's have some thought here and not mindless loyalty.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with loyalty to GWB it has to do with correctly remembering history and understanding why the decisions have been made. There was overwhelming support for the invasion of Iraq. I know there were some who opposed but overwhelming support none the less. It would be nice to be able to operate in a vacuum but it is impossible. I know many of the people who initially supported the Iraq invasion will not admit it today. Why did they support it??? Because Saddam was a threat (now neutralized). Maybe UBL would not have been a threat if we had taken him out when we had the opportunity.
 
To render possible a peaceful solution inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they can not continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm. Its full and active co-operation is necessary.
Click to expand...

Hey Slash,

Are you sure you posted the right link? This is the French, German, and Russian attempt to prolong the "Oil for Food" program while acknowledging that Iraq had continually disregarded UN resolutions in the past and that Iraq was still in possession of WMD.

At the time the Military leadership was worried about our troops having to invade in deadly heat in chem suits. If the start of the Iraq invasion would have been delayed 30 days it would have been necessary to delay it for 6 months because of extreme heat. In hind sight it probably wouldn't have mattered, what is important is how it looked at the time. Nobody knew what Saddam's capabilities were or what his plans were. Again I don't think there was any real dispute...everyone believed Saddam had WMD because of 12 years of not complying. This was the stupidest play in the history of negotiations IMO, he played and he lost.
 
Pipoman,
No, I will not agree to that.
Click to expand...

You do not agree that 1441 was unanimous?


While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;
Click to expand...

You forget none of the UN resolutions required anyone to prove Saddam had WMD it was up to Saddam to prove he didn't. He refused repeatedly to allow inspections.

Suspicions were enough.
 
make the same post here as on the other thread

Dubyah and the Republicans have pretty much gotten everything they wanted with regards to the war in Iraq. The Democrats voted to give him all the authority he needed. The majority of Democrats have voted for appropriations bills for this war. We witnessed Cheney saying that we would be hailed as conquering heroes in Iraq. We watched Bush say " Mission Accomplished" and bring it on. We witnessed the lack of planning by the disolving of the Iraq Army then the classic V8 moment when the thought occurs we shouldnt have disbanded the Iraqi Army we could have used them. The Democrats moan and groan but overall they have given Dubyah whatever he asked for. There is a place the administration can go to see what has possibly caused the problems in Iraq....

It's called a mirror.
 
What, huh? Seriously, Pipo - old buddy - sometimes I get bored with the liberal-commie-conservative-nazi-Bush-dummy/genius-you are a traitor-you are Hitler threads and just drop out of them.

If I get annoyed at life, then I might tune in and post. This one wasn't that interesting anymore - not saying that you are not interesting but the whole war thing is getting repetitive.

It is an empirical question as to whether Iraq gets its act together. We are there and we need a policy that makes sense. Maybe we shouldn't have gone there and maybe we needed more troops. But what do we do now?

I despair sometimes of solutions to problems in that part of the world. Culturally, the folks seem to hold on to grudges and conflicts against their own best interests.

If they wanted the US out - stop fighting for a year and the natural forces of the US populace would get us out. Then they could go on fighting each other over who was the successor to Mohammed.

Same in the Palestinian/Israeli situation. If they want their own state in the West Bank and Gaza - stop attacking Israel and acknowledge the 1967 borders. That would get world opinion and internal Israeli opinion to end the occupation.

Instead, they just want a conflict as they want to hate.

Look at the USA - a bitter civil war and we are all Americans again. We spout red vs. blue but we are a solid country. We fought Japan and Germany in horrific wars and we get along.

We fought Viet Nam and China and with some conflicts we still get along and trade.

Those countries sprung back from destruction. The Middle East however, cannot get past incredibly self-destructive conflicts that have mired them in the dark ages. I think it is their focus on religion as crucial to the existence of the state - which most modern countries have broken.

Neither party has a really good idea what to do in Iraq, IMHO. Bush seems to have dumped the Chaney, Wulfowitz, Rummy team to some extent with Condi. I wish he would fire Rummy and make it overt. The Dems have no real idea except to get out.

It may be an unsolvable. If we think that a goal was to remove Saddam - then we did that. The reasons were geopolitical and future threats from him, not the nonexistant WMDs. Weakening Iraq may be good or bad.

The biggest thing now is a coherent policy against Iran who may benefit from a weakened Iraq. It is also the case, again IMHO - that we need a Manhattan like project to get us off oil from that region. If we do, then we can let the whole place go to hell and adopt strict measures to keep their loonies contained. We can't do the latter because we and world needs their oil.

Anyway, I will end that we are doomed. TEOTWAWKI. Neither party is worth snot. I suggest in the next election, no Democrat or Republican be allowed to run for office. Let the Constitutionalists and Vegetarians take over. :D
 
pipoman,
Are you implying that 1441 stated that "Saddam had and continued to produce WMD?"
If so, where?

You forget none of the UN resolutions required anyone to prove Saddam had WMD it was up to Saddam to prove he didn't. He refused repeatedly to allow inspections.

Suspicions were enough.
Click to expand...

Suspicions were definitely *not* enough, nor did we go to war over "suspicions". 1441 did not authorize military action specifically *because* suspicions are *not* enough. The UN told us overwhelmingly not to invade because suspicions are *not* enough.
We went to war on the absolute conviction that Saddam *definitely* had them, *definitely* had a working relationship with terrorists, and was going to hand them over to them. They claimed that Iraq was *definitely* a "clear and present threat" to American national security.
Definite conviction, not suspicion. They claimed they even knew specifically where these WMDs were. They claimed it was a "slam-dunk".
100% wrong on all counts.
Don't try to pass off 'suspicions' as 'definite convictions'. It ain't gonna fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top