Sophandros Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:The Iraq fisaco has damaged the image of the US around the world. I believe we are creating more terrorists by our presecence there. I also believe this has become a terrorist training ground and they will soon be exporting their "newly acquired technigues". 73% of American disapprove of our incolvemnet there. You are in the minority Niner........... get used to it. This stone will drag on your neck for many many years, as it should. Let's hope the majority of American's have finally been slapped out of their slumber. My eyes have been open wide since 2000.

so, you think after 9/11 we should not have gone to war with terrorist and Al-Qaeda. i.e., be Ghandi?

Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda until after we got into Iraq.

yes they did, saddam harbored them. The First Trade Center attack in 93 is tied to Saddam/iraq. Ramsey Youssef was here on an Iraqi Passport and bombed it on the 2yr anniversary of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. also, Abdul Rahman Yasin who the Clinton Justice Dept. put a $2 million dollar bounty on his head and mixed the chemicals in the bomb, returned to Iraq after the bombing. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.

Quote:Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.”

Abu Abbas, is one of the good examples of major terrorist working with Saddam we caught.


There is good reason why throughout the 90's and up until the war, Iraq was listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism and why in 1998 they passed "Regime Change in Iraq" as official US policy

Machiavelli Wrote:Our Army has missed recruiting goals the last two months. We are taking in convicts and pretty much anybody with a heart beat now. How long can we keep this insanity up?

http://newsbusters.org/node/13996

Quote:The Army is nonetheless ahead of its year-to-date recruiting goal
July, August, and September are traditionally the best months for recruiting
Many potential enlistees are turned away from being overweight or lacking a high school diploma
Some experts, such as former Defense undersecretary Edwin Dorn, marvel that "the big surprise is that Army recruiting has remained as healthy as it has been" given the Iraq war's falling support in the polls.
Nope, instead the lede is two straight months of numbers that aren't up to par and immediately Iraq is blamed.

Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein and his secular government. bin Laden called Hussein an "infidel."

There were no WMDs in Iraq.

There was no al Queda in Iraq (until after we invaded).

The whole invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest US mistakes since Vietnam.

Quote:We have done all that we can/should be expected to do. The fact is it's time for Iraq to stand or fall on its own. This doesn't make me a hippy liberal. I've always believed I'm first and foremost a pragmatist. And any pragmatic thinking would lead you to believe it's time to end our full scale involvement in Iraq.

I'm at a loss for words. Surprising...... wasn't expecting ever to read that. I've thought that way for quite awhile. How can you expect our troops to play referee where some on each side want to kill them?

THE POINT: Iraq isnt doing what they were supposed to. Are we supposed to stay there forever while they screw around? At some point you have to get the hell out.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:There were no WMDs in Iraq.

As someone who's been ***edited by GrayBeard***.

GGniner Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:The Iraq fisaco has damaged the image of the US around the world. I believe we are creating more terrorists by our presecence there. I also believe this has become a terrorist training ground and they will soon be exporting their "newly acquired technigues". 73% of American disapprove of our incolvemnet there. You are in the minority Niner........... get used to it. This stone will drag on your neck for many many years, as it should. Let's hope the majority of American's have finally been slapped out of their slumber. My eyes have been open wide since 2000.

so, you think after 9/11 we should not have gone to war with terrorist and Al-Qaeda. i.e., be Ghandi?

Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda until after we got into Iraq.

yes they did, saddam harbored them. The First Trade Center attack in 93 is tied to Saddam/iraq. Ramsey Youssef was here on an Iraqi Passport and bombed it on the 2yr anniversary of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. also, Abdul Rahman Yasin who the Clinton Justice Dept. put a $2 million dollar bounty on his head and mixed the chemicals in the bomb, returned to Iraq after the bombing. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.

Quote:Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.”

Abu Abbas, is one of the good examples of major terrorist working with Saddam we caught.


There is good reason why throughout the 90's and up until the war, Iraq was listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism and why in 1998 they passed "Regime Change in Iraq" as official US policy

15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been financing terrorist groups all over the globe under the guise of charitable organizations. Their mosques are hotbeds of radical islam. The only reason they're not on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is that we need their oil. If we were going to threaten somebody in the middle east it should have been Saudi Arabia. Now that we've stirred up a hornet's nest in Iraq and gotten the Sunnis and Shiites fighting each other, we can get out. If nothing else, the radical Sunnis now have to worry about Iran and the Shiites gaining control of Iraq. Give them something else to do besides going after us. One thing we know about religious factions in the middle east is that once the external enemy (or dictator) is out of the way they will start fighting each other.

NIU007 Wrote:15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been financing terrorist groups all over the globe under the guise of charitable organizations. Their mosques are hotbeds of radical islam.

We should have kicked Saudi Arabia to the curb years ago. It is true that wahhabism's tenets are a major opponent to freedom. However, SA isn't the only problem, just one of the better financed.

Machiavelli Wrote:How can you expect our troops to play referee where some on each side want to kill them?

Where exactly did I say we play referee? We don't. We let the Sunnis and the Shia kill each other, more than likely providing money and arms to whichever faction Iran isn't backing (can't remember if that's Sunni or Shia).

We will hand Iraq over to be in a state of perpetual war for the next few decades, one that will ultimately drag other areas into the conflict and put us back there fighting a full scale war again, only against an enemy far stonger and more numerous than before.

This is the path our war strategy combined with the opposition in this country have set us on. I'm simply saying lets just get it started now.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Where exactly did I say we play referee? We don't. We let the Sunnis and the Shia kill each other, more than likely providing money and arms to whichever faction Iran isn't backing (can't remember if that's Sunni or Shia).

That would be the Shia. Iran is predominantly a Shi'ite-held land. The rest of the ME is predominately Sunni. However, it's not that simple. This implies that the entire country is in turmoil with Sunni-Shi'ite violence. There are many cities where both sides get along. Many of these people just want to work and live. You just don't see that **** in the MSM. Many Shi'ites don't give a rat's ass about Iran. To say that is to say that all Sunnis support Al Qaeda. MOST people there are tired of warfare but they're putting too much faith in us to protect them. They aren't armed well enough to defend themselves and we refuse to close the damn borders of between the countries that are arming the insurgents....for some odd reason.

NIU007 Wrote:15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been financing terrorist groups all over the globe under the guise of charitable organizations. Their mosques are hotbeds of radical islam. The only reason they're not on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is that we need their oil.

I agree the Saudi's are a big enemy there, but I think with the Saudi Royal Family we are taking a "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" type of strategy. Same with Pakistan, because if either of those two regimes fall its very likely something worse will take its place. We'd have Osama by now if it wasn't for the fact that he's in that Pakistan region and to get him would likely cause an insurrection and maybe enough to finally take out Mushareef, then Pakistan is in hands of radicals, and Pakistan has nukes.

and while they were Saudi's, they were also international just as much. This war doesn't really have borders, i.e. targets to attack.
bottom line is this whole thing is totally screwed up, but I think its a game of hight stakes chess, not checkers. We(and the civilized world) are dependent on the free flow of oil out of the region, if not we could just bomb the place to pieces.

all of these dictators, Saddam, Iran, forces in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere dream of being a modern day Saladin. If one pulls it off(by wiping out Israel first likely) most of the muslim world will rally behind him, its a scary thought.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:There were no WMDs in Iraq.

As someone who's been As someone who's been ***edited by GrayBeard***.

Post proof that significant amounts of WMDs were found in Iraq.

Otherwise, you're full of

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Post proof that significant amounts of WMDs were found in Iraq.

Otherwise, you're full of

Again, you have a convoy of trucks heading for Syria before we attacked.

Then this:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

As for the other, it's not my place to reveal finds to the public. Petition the FOIA.

Im sorry but if there were really WMD's in Iraq that ammounted to anything, it would be all over the news and Bush would be gloating about it. I doubt you would have to get a FOIA request to find out about them.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Post proof that significant amounts of WMDs were found in Iraq.

Otherwise, you're full of

Again, you have a convoy of trucks heading for Syria before we attacked.

Then this:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

As for the other, it's not my place to reveal finds to the public. Petition the FOIA.

#1 Convoys prove nothing unless you can verify exactly what they contained.

#2 The "500 chemical weapons" story was completely discounted a long time ago.

Quote:Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

#3 The burden of proof is still on you. You've provided nothing that's backed up your claims so far.

ETSUfan1 Wrote:Im sorry but if there were really WMD's in Iraq that ammounted to anything, it would be all over the news and Bush would be gloating about it. I doubt you would have to get a FOIA request to find out about them.

Again, depends on how you define "significant". Large amounts of chemical weapons were found in both the Tigris and Euphrates river as well. Not to mention a convoy that wasn't stopped, or a complex with cargo trucks all around it from sat images, yet leveled and deserted once we arrived. Add to that, about 5 feet of soil was removed from the AO. People say we don't have enough troops there, so I ask you, what makes you think the entire country has been searched? Try burying your keys on the beach. Don't leave any type of marker. Now come back a few days later, WITHOUT a metal detector, and try and locate them.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:#3 The burden of proof is still on you. You've provided nothing that's backed up your claims so far.

Certain things are above my pay grade. You have yet to post any proof that there weren't any, and unless the entire country has been turned upside down, you will never be able to make that claim. Again, NO amount will satisfy you unless it's a coliseum-sized complex loaded from bottom to top with warheads labeled, "VX Nerve Agent to be used on Innocent Liberal Americans".

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:#3 The burden of proof is still on you. You've provided nothing that's backed up your claims so far.

Certain things are above my pay grade. You have yet to post any proof that there weren't any, and unless the entire country has been turned upside down, you will never be able to make that claim. Again, NO amount will satisfy you unless it's a coliseum-sized complex loaded from bottom to top with warheads labeled, "VX Nerve Agent to be used on Innocent Liberal Americans".

You made the claim that they had WMDs. Prove it.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You made the claim that they had WMDs. Prove it.

It's been proven, by the Iranians, by the Kurds, and by the links provided. It just doesn't please you.

As any "sane" liberal on this board knows, the WMD's is a side issue with me. I feel we should have gone in in the 90's, after he tried to assassinate a former President and after the first SAM was fired at our pilots patrolling the No-Fly Zone.

Now, if you want to blame Bush for going into Iraq, and think he was the only one worried about WMD's, what say you about this:

Quote:"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quote:"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quote:"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Quote:"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Quote:"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Quote:"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Quote:"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Quote:"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Quote:"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

Quote:"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Quote:"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Quote:"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Quote:"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Quote:"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Quote:"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Quote:"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Quote:"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Quote:"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Quote:"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

??

It shows me that, apparently, Democrats were just as worried about WMD's falling into the hands of terrorists as Bush. However, somewhere along the line, and after voting to send the troops and once they were on the ground, they stuck their collective fingers up in the air and said, nope, not politically advantageous. So, **** Bush, **** the troops, **** terrorists, .....we care about our political futures more.

in Richard Miniters book, Disinformation:

Quote:• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

one example: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/...63,00.html

Quote:Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq
17/05/2004 17:48 - (SA)

Baghdad, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded near a US military convoy in Baghdad, the US military said on Monday. It was the first confirmed finding of any of the banned weapons upon which the United States based its case for the Iraq war.

who knows what is still classified....I've got video of Saddam using nerve gas on animals for test. The troops went in initially with gas mask on for a reason...