Oh boy. I tried to exercise restraint and just let this topic die, I really did. I guess I'm a sucker, because I know the group think on this message board has proven to be utterly negligent to the facts time and time again, and any efforts I put forth to refute your falsehoods would amount to nothing more than time wasted in vain.
But once again, I'm a sucker, and your post is abundant with inaccuracies, so here I am taking the bait.
Quote:
I know that. I thought it was obvious I was just talking about the root cause. I guess I wasn't that clear with my sarcastic comment.
I caught you lacking basic knowledge of the Clinton perjury debacle. Do not attempt to weasel your way out of it. Save the BS for someone who's more susceptible. I can see right through it with the same crystal clear transparency as the glass plate I'm viewing this through on my monitor screen. It's ok to admit you didn't know something. I will forgive you.
Quote:
The only reason why bush won't get impeached for lying under oath, is because he refuses to declare under oath... i wonder why?
I'm really not sure what you are talking about. Who's trying to put Bush under oath? Is this about the 9/11 commission? Anyway, we've got a Senate investigation in progress regarding the pre-war intelligence, and if their investigation calls for Bush to testify under oath, he will do so undoubtfully.
Quote:
Saddam did let the inspectors in before the war. The results weren't just of bush's liking.
You can say it wasn't to Bush's liking, but I would like to remind you that he violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which actually starts by basically stating some of the relevant resolutions Iraq violated over the course of 12 years:
"Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully"The Council then acknowledges Iraq's threat:
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and securityStates Iraq's historical non-compliance to inspection regimes:
"Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998"Should I just quote the entire document?
"Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"What serious consequences? More "diplomatic" sanctions to keep Saddam in power? Do you suggest the better way to handle Saddam would have been to impose more sanctions to kill off several hundred thousand more Iraqis due to mass starvation and extremely impoverish conditions? Were you even aware such things were happening within Iraq during the mid 90's? I guess since there weren't embedded reporters covering the widespread famine, bringing you live footage of children dying in droves from malnutrition, starvation, waterborne diseases etc.., such atrocities never occurred in your world. Well guess what? They sure as hell did in mine.
Quote:
So, according to you, this war was actually to prevent Iraq from getting more powerful WMD than gas?
I'm not sure how you derived that from my post. If he had any kind of chemical, biological, nuclear or long range ballistic weapons, it was a clear violation of most of the U.N. resolutions listed above, which warranted "serious consequences" for the regime. I actually believed that he had a chemical weapon stockpile, and at some point during the leadup to 1441 he probably moved them to Syria or elsewhere when pre-emptive action was clearly imminent.
Quote:
Because if this war was to stop crazy dictators from using already existing WMD, I guess the first target would have been North Korea... right?
North Korea has stated time and time again that the only reason they were seeking nuclear capabilities was to protect themselves against a U.S. invasion. They are extremely dangerous with these weapons no doubt, but they aren't just going to pop off nukes erratically - that would be suicidal. The only real use they will get out of them is diplomatic leverage, and they knew that when developing them. That's why they conveniently announced their nukes a month or two after Operation Iraqi Freedom had gone underway, knowing that military action from the U.S. and allies was extremely unlikely at that time.
Now, they do have a motive to sell nukes to terrorist due to their financial constraints, but at this moment in time it would be equally as suicidal as just launching the nukes themselves. Just imagine how the U.S. would react to North Korea selling nukes to terrorist? It wouldn't be pretty.
Quote:
North Korea that has screamed to everyone that they have nuclear weapons, some of which were pointing to the US.
They screamed to everyone that they were developing nuclear weapons when they kicked out the U.N. monitors back in '01 or whenever it was. They didn't actually announce that they had successfully processed a nuclear bomb until after Operation Iraqi Freedom, because they intend to use the nukes more as diplomatic leverage rather than actual weapons.
Quote:
Oh, right, I forgot, North Korea has no oil! What would Halliburton do then?
Maybe you should direct that towards refinery companies, because they are the ones who would potentially profit the most from oil in Iraq. Oh wait, most of those companies aren't American or associated with the Bush administration in any way! Sorry, I forgot. That must make them A-Okay in your book!
Also, do you realize that Halliburton's profit margins have been shrinking largely due to Iraq? Halliburton is a publicly traded company. I bet you've never looked at any of their financial data, have you?
Also, if we ventured into Iraq for oil, we failed miserably at our "mission." I was recently paying more than double for gasoline and natural gas from what I was at the start of the invasion. I'm glad GWB's oil hoarding conspiracy has paid off! It sure is a relief to me knowing I now have to pay double what I did before! Following your string of logic, all that extra oil we are exploiting out of Iraq would have increased our national inventories and our prices would have gone down as a result of supply and demand. What the hell is going on here? I almost wish your conspiracy theory was true on this one actually, for my wallet's sake at the pump, but unfortunately it's not.
Quote:
Then why not go to Rwanda first?
I guess you have a difficult time putting things into a proper chronological context.
I know it seems like a new revelation to you, since you probably watched the move "Hotel Rwanda" recently and realized the types of things that were transpiring there, but the Rwanda genocide happened back in '95. That was like a decade ago under a completely different U.S. administration. Clinton didn't want to meddle in the Rwandan conflict because, to briefly summarize it, he was too worried about his poll numbers dropping as a result of it.
Oh and by the way, the reason he was worried about the political repercussions of going into Rwanda was because of the Mogadishu incident. Do you even know why the U.S. was in Somalia? Do you even know what was going on in that country with the relief blockades and the mass starvation? The only problem the U.S. had with that incident is that we had a fairly liberal Democrat in office who was not willing to stay the course and take a hit on his popularity rating after those 18 soldiers died in Mogadishu. So he decided to turn a blind eye on all of the horrible atrocities in Somalia and Rwanda for nothing more than political gain. Clinton was a man that was often praised internationally as well. How pathetic.
Clinton wasn't the only one to ignore the Rwandan genocide however. Virtually every western nation neglected to take action there, including your anti-American heroes, the French.
Quote:
Funny how you also mention U.N. resolutions, when the US itself sent the UN to screw herself when it invaded Iraq.
I already covered this above. But here's an interesting question anyway; Saddam violated U.N. resolutions for over a decade. If the U.N. was unable and unwilling to impose "serious consequences" to the 17 or more violated resolutions, why even bother having a U.N? They pretty much voided their usefulness by not adhering to their own charter back when Iraq violated that multiple times, yet still remained a member for some strange reason.
Quote:
Funny how you mention 5000 innocent kurds being gassed by Saddam, when the US military has confessed using WP against a whole town.
It's time for some intellectual honesty here. What you are doing is clear deception, and is no better than the bold-faced lies you accuse Bush of.
You purposefully omitted the fact that we used WP in a completely deserted
Fallujah and the fact that phosphorous itself is questionably a chemical weapon, since the chemical properties of it do not actually kill people - it's the heat it generates that does it.
The battle which it was used as a weapon was the Fallujah offensive last year. That's the same battle which we compromised our ability to trap and eliminate a large amount of the insurgency
and Zarqawi by dropping pamphlets and warning 2 weeks in advance of our offensive in order to minimalize civilian casualties.
I had quite a bit of raw video footage of the ground combat in Fallujah, and I gotta tell you there wasn't a single Arab person in that video that did not have some kind of assault weapon with him. The fact of the matter is all the innocent civilians were able to evacuate the city well in advance to the offensive taking place, and nearly all casualties were of combatant status thanks to the precautionary measures of the U.S. and Iraqi governments. But that goes against the grain of your "evil American imperialistic empire" ideology, so we'll just go ahead and dismiss that point right here.
Quote:
Funny how bush accuses saddam of torturing, when the US governement has his own torture chambers in Iraq and when they keep innocent people behind bars for months without any trial while abusing them.
Are you honestly trying to compare cutting tongues off, dismemberments, rapes, brutal beatings which often kill or leave the victim physically and/or mentally incapacitated to sleep depravation and loud music? I deprive myself of sleep and play loud music just about every day. It ain't all that bad. Do you not think the CIA realizes that if you physically torture someone, they will tell you whatever the hell they think you want to here? Saddam's type of torture doesn't work very well to extract credible information. Stop comparing my troops and CIA/FBI agents to Saddam's thugs. It's highly offensive to me as an American.
Also, lets say I'm a Marine on patrol, and some nut shoots a bullet at me, and I'm able to capture that person alive somehow; Is that person really considered innocent? You really seem to have a warped perception of certain things, but I guess you'll believe anything as long as it feeds your hatred for the current U.S. administration.
Quote:
Funny how with saddamn, you never heard about suicide bombings in Bagdad, and now with the US you hear about them every day
You also never heard about the mass graves Saddam was filling, or the hundreds of thousand of Iraqis starving to death while Saddam was raping the Oil for Food program and simultaneously buying off French and Russian politicians along with it. There are quite a few things you apparently never heard of, because they simply didn't show up on your newspaper headlines or television screen. What a pity.
Quote:
Bush has created a terrorist training camp in Iraq.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you phrased this wrong. It doesn't take much "training" to strap on a bomb vest and look around for the biggest crowd possible to detonate yourself in.
Quote:
I completely blame every civilian or military death caused by suicide bombings on the US government. There's your number. Their presence has caused these terrorists to overflow Iraq.
I'm sorry. No comprendo. I asked for an accurate number of deaths caused by coalition fire, insurgent fire, and Hussein's regime. What you provided is not an accurate number of anything. Hell, you didn't even provide a number at all.
What you did was dodge the issue by tossing out left wing logic. I got to say, I do agree with the "coalition presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency" argument to a degree, but I also believe a good portion of these fanatics who have died in Iraq would have recruited with Al-Qaida or other organizations, or perhaps started their own, solely based on our actions in Afghanistan and support for Israel. Perhaps not all of them, but many would have, and basically we would have seen an uprising in Afghanistan insurgency and about 500 more Ramada hotel/restaurant in Bali type of bombing incidents throughout the world.
Quote:
Yes they can vote now... if they can get close enough to a vote booth without a car exploding in their faces.
They could vote before as well. For Saddam or....Saddam. And any dissent meant a trip to the mass graveyard, or a missing tongue for life.
Life in Iraq sure was a utopia of peace and prosperity before 2003. Damn that U.S.A for ruining it all.
Login
FAQ
