• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guantanamo closure plan ordered

conquer said:
He tried to assassinate a former president.

This is a conspiracy theory, so far only a few guys bought it and people were so indifferent that you never saw a single protest in the streets about this assumed assassination attempt.

We offered Saddam a chance to leave and he did not take it.:confused:

And, who the hell are you to decide who can rule a country and who can't in the first place?

Besides, your big mistake here is that nobody argued in the UN about Saddam leaving power or not, the discussions were if Iraq had WMD or not. We had Powell showing his assumed "mobile labs" which caused laughs to many, and I still think that the satellite pictures showing those vehicles moving from factory to factory and people going back and forward from the building to the vehicles, is because those vehicles were ice cream trucks! :lol:

Not only was Iraq our problem, but your pure ignorance compounded it.

Explain with solid evidence why Iraq was a danger for US, you must demonstrate with facts the imminent danger of Iraq participating in terrorist attacks against US.. I think that your position is the idiotic one of people who think that is right to kill another person just because you don't like him. Because guys like you there are thousands of US troops who have come back "nuts", do you understand? They are in need of psychological treatment "because the atrocities", now, who will treat the trauma of the millions of Iraqis (civilians, children) who won't leave Iraq but that will stay in the middle of such mess? What now? Where are your US psychologists sent to Iraq to help the civilian Iraqis?:roll:

Besides, for your information, all the results in the UN gave the conclusion that Iraq didn't have WMD. In front of this failure, US made its own "coalition" of two (with UK) and the support of a few troops of countries which decided to kiss US/UK butts. The UN definitively went outside of this abuse made by the Bush administration.

Reading how blind is your position in front of facts, I think that your point is a racist one.
Click to expand...
Conquer, when you get your butt spanked, will you begin to question the drivel you have been filled with?

PBS and Algore are not Republican supporters by any stretch of the imagination, so you "conspiracy theory" is... dead.

In retaliation, President Clinton two months later ordered the firing of 23 cruise missiles at Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad. The day before the attack U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright went before the Security Council to present evidence of the Iraqi plot. And, after the U.S. attack, Vice President Gore said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented."
frontline: the long road to war: assassination | PBS
Click to expand...

I remember it clearly.

Score: Conquer 0 - Zimmer 1

We offered Saddam to leave.
Conquer. He lost Gulf War 1 and did not live up to the agreement a loser signs. So, "Yes we can" go in and finish the job. That's how it works. We tried it peacefully for 12-years with 16 useless UN Resolutions. Post 911 we tried one more time. We gave him an out too. He chose war.

Every intel agency said he had WMD. To not act would have empowered every kook in the world. Not acting post 911 had consequences outside the Iraq theater.

Maybe difficult for you to understand having a seemingly myopic world view.

Score: Conquer 0 - Zimmer 2

Tell me genius, how are my statements racist?
This I'd love to hear.
Are you Barak Hussein Obama, posting while you have a few minutes on your hand. You sound like him. Uninformed and throwing the racist card around like a baseball during warm-ups.

You sound like a teenager to me.
I was like you at that age. A blind socialist.
Don't worry, there is hope... just don't close your mind.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Schroeder is a special case. An imbecile.
He proved again in on his way out... during the round table interviews with all the party leaders after he lost the election to Merkel.

He (Schroeder) and his butt buddy Chirac proved themselves to be the most disgusting of opportunists.

For you?
I suspect they are your heroes.
Click to expand...

Schoeder is clearly a genius, he said no to the Iraq war, and we all know he was right alongside another genius, Chirac.
 
PeteEU said:
They also said he did not. In fact there was plenty of evidence to cast doubt that he had WMD, but that evidence was ignored by the US government, which has been proven beyond a doubt now.
Click to expand...
So much ignorance in your responses, so little time. So let's cut to the core.

Saddam and WMD.

After 911, your side screamed about: CONNECT THE DOTS

So, let's take a trip back in time. The following transcript is from the Senate Armed Service Committee with Dr. David Kay.
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

It illustrates just how dangerous the reality was, and it shows how dangerous you folks and your Neville Chamberlain world view is.

KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.

We're also in a period in which we've had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

There's a long record here of being wrong. There's a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don't have free and open societies.

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.
Click to expand...

MCCAIN: So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?

KAY: There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator.
Click to expand...
KAY: I think you will have, when you get the final ISG report, pretty compelling evidence that Saddam had the intention of continuing the pursuit of WMD when the opportunity arose and that the first start on that, the long pole in the tent, was this restart of the long-range missile program.

CORNYN: So that, given time, these programs would have matured and Saddam would have been able to reconstitute his WMD arsenal?

KAY: I hesitate, Senator -- only I think that that's the safe assumption. What I don't know over time, and I'm more and more struck with, is how corrupt and destructive that society had become. But you can't count on when it would fall apart. And it might fall apart in ways that are far more dangerous. So I think that is a safe assumption.

CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.
Click to expand...
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Schoeder is clearly a genius, he said no to the Iraq war, and we all know he was right alongside another genius, Chirac.
Click to expand...
No surprise here. I know you people and your twisted world view having had to deal with it for over three decades.
Folks like you would eat any horse s**t served.
And smile while consuming it.

Guten apetit.
 
zimmer said:
No surprise here. I know you people and your twisted world view having had to deal with it for over three decades.
Folks like you would eat any horse s**t served.
And smile while consuming it.

Guten apetit.
Click to expand...

Listening to you its apparently people like you who eat any horse**** they are served. I am not the one in full support of either Scrhoeder or Chirac, but they were right on the Iraq war. You seem like a typical republican that just swallows anything that comes from the leadership and adopt their policies as you own.
Me I am a complex mix of the best of the best, I like the best of everyone and take away the ****, and adopt all the best for myself in creating my own policies and opinions :mrgreen:
 
bhkad said:
If the detainees are housed in places other than Gitmo they will regret it.

Gitmo was made for their comfort.

Regular American prisons are not.

Most people don't realize the luxury of space, freedom and cultural accommodations they enjoy at Gitmo.
Click to expand...
I saw your avatar and did not expect this, but you are 100% right. (I like the fact you're honest about Obama. He is a Marxist)

Having them in worse conditions is a small consolation.

I hope they get the worst of it and are housed with regular inmates... but that won't happen.

The last thing we need is inmates killing terrorists.

I don't think one of these terrorist bastards would survive if placed in a regular MS prison.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I didnt pay much for the Iraq war except for the intellectual dread it has been to see what has been going on in the US the last decade and having to respond and communicate with people like YOU.
Click to expand...

Your such a pleasant little ball of hate...
 
bhkad said:
If the detainees are housed in places other than Gitmo they will regret it.

Gitmo was made for their comfort.

Regular American prisons are not.

Most people don't realize the luxury of space, freedom and cultural accommodations they enjoy at Gitmo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I heard that the Jews loved concentration camps too. :roll:
 
EgoffTib said:
maybe you should leave? :2wave:
Click to expand...

Then my blood pressure would drop dangerously fast.. :doh

Aside from that I am suffering a flu at the moment and have been the last week. Not much else to do, it would be unsensible to exercise for example.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
I saw your avatar and did not expect this, but you are 100% right. (I like the fact you're honest about Obama. He is a Marxist)

Having them in worse conditions is a small consolation.

I hope they get the worst of it and are housed with regular inmates... but that won't happen.

The last thing we need is inmates killing terrorists.

I don't think one of these terrorist bastards would survive if placed in a regular MS prison.
Click to expand...

BTW, I was advised by an esteemed fellow Conservative poster that my avatar gave off the wrong impression. I was trying to send a barbed (but true) message in a way that might register with the unthinking Obamabots before the election. Obviously it didn't work. I just haven't changed it yet.

Obama is a sneaky guy who we still can't trust.

Closing Gitmo represents the height of liberalism run amuck.

The detainees have to be housed somewhere. Gitmo is conveniently close to the US, it poses no safety risks to civilians and the detainees are incarcerated there humanely.

Moving them anywhere else runs the risk of changing those parameters.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Listening to you its apparently people like you who eat any horse**** they are served. I am not the one in full support of either Scrhoeder or Chirac, but they were right on the Iraq war. You seem like a typical republican that just swallows anything that comes from the leadership and adopt their policies as you own.
Me I am a complex mix of the best of the best, I like the best of everyone and take away the ****, and adopt all the best for myself in creating my own policies and opinions :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
You're a mix alright. All mixed up.

You know anything mixed with turds is still turds.

Let's see what they were "right" about:

Both the German and French intel services said Saddam had WMD.
Schroeder hid a report from one of his ministries that stated the massive effects of bio weapons that Saddam had the chemicals to produce. A small amount was deadly.

Why would he do that?

Chirac was a Saddam appeaser and an America hater. As Schroeder is. Just look at his history.

Both Schroeder and Chirac supported the UN approach of dialogue and searching. We played that game for 12 years.

What did we learn? Why wasn't the dialogue working? The UN was bought off through the Oil for Food scandal. Saddam was getting billions.

He believed, and rightly so, that the deck was stacked in his favor. It was up to 911. After that the world changed.

We saw the potential of a IslamoNazi terrorist hooking up with a rogue nation that hated America. Saddam was right in their yard.

Connect the dots.

Where did the French-German-Clinton approach get us?
Nowhere. If anything it emboldened terrorists as the saw us as weak.

Your Neville Chamberlain world view is dangerous.
Learn your history, and as a start, why not read this from start to finish:
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
 
zimmer said:
So much ignorance in your responses, so little time. So let's cut to the core.

Saddam and WMD.

After 911, your side screamed about: CONNECT THE DOTS

So, let's take a trip back in time. The following transcript is from the Senate Armed Service Committee with Dr. David Kay.
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

It illustrates just how dangerous the reality was, and it shows how dangerous you folks and your Neville Chamberlain world view is.
Click to expand...

And? Your and other American right wingers arguments have been debunked and ridiculed time and time again, and yet you still spread the same bs crap over and over again.

First off who is David Kay? He is a guy, hired by the man that said it was a "slam dunk" to find WMD in Iraq after the war. He in fact had to eat his pre war words and admit that Iraq had no WMD. And why only David Kay's testimony?

There has been plenty of reports, testimony and investigative journalism that have proved without a doubt that the Bush administration cherry picked intelligence because the call to take out Saddam was made long before, and that the intelligence had to fit the political reality. It amazes me that even with Bush's own people finding zero, nada WMD in Iraq, that they switched their tone to "oh he could have started up his program bla bla" bullcrap.

We also knew before the war that Iraqs WMD were destroyed, because the guy who headed the destruction defected and told us. Of course the Bush administration disregarded his words, because Bush wanted to take revenge out on Saddam who tried to hurt his daddy. We also know that during the lead up to the war, that the Bush administration were told by allies that, the facts they were pushing as truthful about Saddam were in fact a bunch of crap. Yellowcake anyone? But this also was ignored, as it did not fit Bush's policies. It was also know that quite a number of CIA operatives and other countries intelligence agency's had serious doubt about the intelligence on the status of Saddams WMD's.... so much for the "slam dunk".

But that does not change the fact that Iraq had zero to do with 9/11.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, the Gulf States, Pakistan and Afghanistan had and have far more to do with the events leading up to 9/11 and with 9/11 directly and world terror.

Remember Gitmo was set up because of Afghanistan and 9/11 and not Iraq.... so repeat after me .. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Was Saddam a threat? Sure, but compared to North Korea and Iran.. no where near the same threat. His country was in ruins, his military in shambles and he only stayed in power through extreme violence and fear. He was isolated. Do I think it is good we got rid of him.. sure, but I also think that the consequences have been so far not worth the effort, both for the US and the Iraqi people, and especially the world. All it did was empower Iran and Al Q and islamofasism around the world.

Face it, the neo con right wing US government and President screwed up big time, for personal and monetary reasons, and they cant admit it. The result has been 4000 American deaths and 100k+ Iraqi deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars spent and wasted due to fraud, and leaving Iraq as a failed state in waiting. How it was worth it... but dont come laying the blame for your mess on our doorstep.... it was ALL your doing.
 
bhkad said:
Obama is a sneaky guy who we still can't trust.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.

Closing Gitmo represents the height of liberalism run amuck.

The detainees have to be housed somewhere. Gitmo is conveniently close to the US, it poses no safety risks to civilians and the detainees are incarcerated there humanely.

Moving them anywhere else runs the risk of changing those parameters.
Click to expand...

:doh
 
All the intel services in the world said Saddam had WMD.

Saddam hated America.

The chance of him supplying WMD to a terrorist was real.

Connect the dots. (The words from your supporters post 911... aren't they good anymore?)

You people are dangerous.
You fail to learn from history.
From Bali to Tunesia, Nairobi to London, Istanbul to NYC, the terrorists have struck.
Their intentions are clear.

Your minds are mush.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.
Click to expand...

You people aren't only dangerous but disgusting.
Your kind votes to send men into battle because of politics.
Once it is politically expedient to be anti-war you switch like a bunch of traitors.

People like this are the worst kind.
They are willing to send men into harm's way because it will benefit them politically.
That is the Democratic Party.

The Euro-socialists?
What can be said of them.
They're ignorant of the histroy in their own back yards.
Of the mass graves aong the beaches of France.
Of the atrocities committed by their own Volk.
And of the road that caused it.

For you people, it's too bad Americans can't leave you unprotected to the Bear next door and the IslamoNazi's. Then we'll see how much talking and dialogue does for you.

Hell, you had a conflict in your very own yard, The Balkans, and you had to come running to us. You actually protested to get us there and we had no national interest.

When I mean Europee-ons I do not mean the British.
 
zimmer said:
You people are dangerous.
You fail to learn from history.
From Bali to Tunesia, Nairobi to London, Istanbul to NYC, the terrorists have struck.
Their intentions are clear.

Your minds are mush.

You people aren't only dangerous but disgusting.
Your kind votes to send men into battle because of politics.
Once it is politically expedient to be anti-war you switch like a bunch of traitors.
Click to expand...

Ignorant generalizations will only make you look foolish on this board.
 
zimmer said:
Both the German and French intel services said Saddam had WMD.
Click to expand...

Provide evidence of this. I know the right wing blogs and media outlets have claimed this over the years, but find me a french or german source, directly quoting either a government official or representative. Show us a news article, where the French and German intelligence agencies agree with the US and UK assessment of the situation in Iraq before the war.

Schroeder hid a report from one of his ministries that stated the massive effects of bio weapons that Saddam had the chemicals to produce. A small amount was deadly.
Click to expand...

Says who? Provide evidence of this.

Chirac was a Saddam appeaser and an America hater. As Schroeder is. Just look at his history.
Click to expand...

Oh? because he did not bow down to the US, then he suddenly is an America hater and Saddam appeaser?!?

Sure I hated Schroeder too, but for his political views, but he was hardly a Saddam appeaser.. of all the things he dealt with as German leader, I think that Saddam was about as important for him as say trade relations with Uganda.

Both Schroeder and Chirac supported the UN approach of dialogue and searching. We played that game for 12 years.
Click to expand...

A a bit of rewriting history there I see. The policy of the US, UK, France and Germany was to isolate Saddam and bring his regime down from within and to use Iraq as a stop block against Iran. THAT was the policy of Bush nr 1 and Clinton, and a very wise policy. The UN was nothing but the instrument of the major powers, as it has always been.

What did we learn? Why wasn't the dialogue working? The UN was bought off through the Oil for Food scandal. Saddam was getting billions.
Click to expand...

Oil for Food gave Saddam peanuts. Most of his money came from illegally smuggled oil through Jordan and Turkey.. smuggling the US knew about and did nothing about. It was brought up by the UN on many occasions and the US and UK ignored it (and France and Russia).

As for the Oil for Food. Every single contract had to get approval by the US, UK and others. Even the contracts that the UN flagged as "odd" were given the green light by the approval committee. So as for the UN being "bought" off.. hardly. Was its management not as up to code as it should have been.. sure, but again, Saddam made most of his billions through NON UN controlled illegal smuggling with the full knowledge and approval of the US and UK. Dont listen to people like Norm Coleman and Fox News.. try to actually read the facts and evidence.

He believed, and rightly so, that the deck was stacked in his favor. It was up to 911. After that the world changed.
Click to expand...

The deck was stacked in his favor.. sure if you think so. Country isolated, people starving, military run down, society only held in check with brutal force.. sure was soooo stacked in his favour.

As for the world changing on 9/11.... not really. The US changed yes, but not the world, since we have been fighting terror in many forms since the 1920s. There was the Jewish terror in the 1920s and 30s, then there was the Nazi terror, then there was the various communist terror during the 1950s and 1960s, then there was the PLO and other Palestinian terror in the 1970s and 1980s, and then the commie Red Army and what not. Not to forget the Corsican terror groups and ETA. Yea, we have nooo experience in Europe (or its colonies/dependants) on terror... none, nada..

We saw the potential of a IslamoNazi terrorist hooking up with a rogue nation that hated America. Saddam was right in their yard.
Click to expand...

Err... lets see.. an islamonazi terrorist hooking up with a rogue nation that is very non religious for the region, treats women relatively nicely (they could vote and join the army after all), or shack up with a rogue nation that is a religous nutjob state, shares the same values and even practices them...yea right.... I would choose the first of course...:roll:
Connect the dots.
Click to expand...

You should actually, since you only jump from one right wing conspiracy theory to another, jumping over the actual facts. Why did you gloss over the fact that the head of the Iraqi WMD program defected to the West and said that the WMD were destroyed? And that documents found later after the war backed him up? Why did you gloss over the fact that the main intelligence source of the US, was an anti-Saddam pro Tehran Iraqi who we later found out totally screwed the US and told lie after lie?

Where did the French-German-Clinton approach get us?
Nowhere. If anything it emboldened terrorists as the saw us as weak.
Click to expand...

Saw you as weak? How so? And you dont think that the US actions since Afghanistan in any way embolded the radicals and swelled their ranks?

Learn your history, and as a start, why not read this from start to finish:
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
Click to expand...

You should learn your history.. ALL your history instead of cherry picking bits and rewriting the rest to fit your world view.
 
bhkad said:
Your inability to make a more persuasive case is noted.
Click to expand...

A more persuasive case? You failed to make a case in the first place. You stated your opinion as fact, without backing up said opinion with any form of credible evidence.

:beam:
 
Guantanamo have been problematic for many reason. One is the bounty programs that contrary to what some people still believe not everyone got caught with a AK 47 or with planning a bomb. This have long been a myth that the Bush administration have tried to keep a live, that they their all "evil doers".

But a lot probably a majority was caught through a bounty program their you could get thousand of dollars for just one evil doers. It then very easy to understand that it will be a very good profit making scheme to caught terrorist, but also that the poor Afganisthan villlager will not care very much if the person they caught is innocent or not. The sad part their that the USA goverment neither was that. That they cared very little if the person that was caught was a terrorist or just a way for some poor farmers to earn a small fortune. That the important things seems to be statistic, that you show action by the fact that you have captured a lot of "evil doers".

Not only was wish very bad from a morality aspect but it also show that money management is thrown out the window then it comes to fighting terrorism. That the capture and imprisonment of innocent have cost millions of dollars. Money that could have been used much more better in the fight against terrorism.

New Statesman - How Guantanamo's prisoners were sold

Kafka and Uighurs at Guantánamo - by Ray McGovern

Report: Profiles of Guantanamo Refugees | Center for Constitutional Rights
 
zimmer said:
You're a mix alright. All mixed up.

You know anything mixed with turds is still turds.

Let's see what they were "right" about:

Both the German and French intel services said Saddam had WMD.
Schroeder hid a report from one of his ministries that stated the massive effects of bio weapons that Saddam had the chemicals to produce. A small amount was deadly.

Why would he do that?

Chirac was a Saddam appeaser and an America hater. As Schroeder is. Just look at his history.

Both Schroeder and Chirac supported the UN approach of dialogue and searching. We played that game for 12 years.

What did we learn? Why wasn't the dialogue working? The UN was bought off through the Oil for Food scandal. Saddam was getting billions.

He believed, and rightly so, that the deck was stacked in his favor. It was up to 911. After that the world changed.

We saw the potential of a IslamoNazi terrorist hooking up with a rogue nation that hated America. Saddam was right in their yard.

Connect the dots.

Where did the French-German-Clinton approach get us?
Nowhere. If anything it emboldened terrorists as the saw us as weak.

Your Neville Chamberlain world view is dangerous.
Learn your history, and as a start, why not read this from start to finish:
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
Click to expand...

Wow, you really are something of a republican eater.
Oil and food, Saddam and 911, Islam and Nazism, non-dialogue/non-diplomacy straight to war, phony evidence, I guess you eat republican propaganda raw and unprocessed. :shock:

I am damn proud to be nothing like you, nor the other pole. :mrgreen:
 
PeteEU said:
And? Your and other American right wingers arguments have been debunked and ridiculed time and time again, and yet you still spread the same bs crap over and over again.

First off who is David Kay? He is a guy, hired by the man that said it was a "slam dunk" to find WMD in Iraq after the war. He in fact had to eat his pre war words and admit that Iraq had no WMD. And why only David Kay's testimony?

There has been plenty of reports, testimony and investigative journalism that have proved without a doubt that the Bush administration cherry picked intelligence because the call to take out Saddam was made long before, and that the intelligence had to fit the political reality. It amazes me that even with Bush's own people finding zero, nada WMD in Iraq, that they switched their tone to "oh he could have started up his program bla bla" bullcrap.

We also knew before the war that Iraqs WMD were destroyed, because the guy who headed the destruction defected and told us. Of course the Bush administration disregarded his words, because Bush wanted to take revenge out on Saddam who tried to hurt his daddy. We also know that during the lead up to the war, that the Bush administration were told by allies that, the facts they were pushing as truthful about Saddam were in fact a bunch of crap. Yellowcake anyone? But this also was ignored, as it did not fit Bush's policies. It was also know that quite a number of CIA operatives and other countries intelligence agency's had serious doubt about the intelligence on the status of Saddams WMD's.... so much for the "slam dunk".

But that does not change the fact that Iraq had zero to do with 9/11.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, the Gulf States, Pakistan and Afghanistan had and have far more to do with the events leading up to 9/11 and with 9/11 directly and world terror.

Remember Gitmo was set up because of Afghanistan and 9/11 and not Iraq.... so repeat after me .. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Was Saddam a threat? Sure, but compared to North Korea and Iran.. no where near the same threat. His country was in ruins, his military in shambles and he only stayed in power through extreme violence and fear. He was isolated. Do I think it is good we got rid of him.. sure, but I also think that the consequences have been so far not worth the effort, both for the US and the Iraqi people, and especially the world. All it did was empower Iran and Al Q and islamofasism around the world.

Face it, the neo con right wing US government and President screwed up big time, for personal and monetary reasons, and they cant admit it. The result has been 4000 American deaths and 100k+ Iraqi deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars spent and wasted due to fraud, and leaving Iraq as a failed state in waiting. How it was worth it... but dont come laying the blame for your mess on our doorstep.... it was ALL your doing.
Click to expand...

You can give up, that guy you are debating with is NEVER going to listen no matter how right you are, trust me. He don't care that his government spend hundreds of billions on warfare while his country is falling apart, its his type of people that will be the end of America as we knew it and loved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom