• 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!

U.S. ignored reports of Iraqi abuse: documents

This is armchair quaterbacking. It is really rather simplistic to look at documents years later and simply say that you would have done things differently, but just not realistic.

Julian Asange and people like him that have absolutely NO regard for those people he has killed, and is likely to cause harm to is of no consequence to him personally so what's the difference between him and the one who will cause the torture due to his repugnant release of these documents? These crimes he and bleeding hearts cry over, are now being caused in the name of full disclosure. Congratulations.

j-mac
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
as I said in the other thread, Asange is a head that needs a bullet in it.
Click to expand...

Explosive revelations about Asange today, here:

Secret war at the heart of Wikileaks - Online, Media - The Independent

Interesting how the head of an organization that espouses that information should be free and open in ALL circumstances, gets upset when questioned about his own pedophilia adventures leaked about him. I guess it is only proper to leak that of those you are going after in his mind, certainly not him.


j-mac
 
Let's see, went to war because oof WMD. no, wait, it was wmd programs. no wait, that wasn't it. it was wmd program related activity. No, it was stop Saddam from torturing his people and spreading freedom. No wait, . . . ahhh, hell, . . . . same **** different people in charge.

Link or not, the fact is if we still have torture, sat and allowed torture by those we put in charge, we have a problem with our rationale for this war. of course, there always was a problem. Some were and still all just too willing to buy anything that given them.
 
Boo Radley said:
Let's see, went to war because oof WMD. no, wait, it was wmd programs. no wait, that wasn't it. it was wmd program related activity. No, it was stop Saddam from torturing his people and spreading freedom. No wait, . . . ahhh, hell, . . . . same **** different people in charge.

Link or not, the fact is if we still have torture, sat and allowed torture by those we put in charge, we have a problem with our rationale for this war. of course, there always was a problem. Some were and still all just too willing to buy anything that given them.
Click to expand...



actually if you wanted to show some honesty, you would acknowledge there was a myriad of reasons, not one that bush leveled for going to war. You can be against the war, but dishonest shennenigans is not proper debate.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
actually if you wanted to show some honesty, you would acknowledge there was a myriad of reasons, not one that bush leveled for going to war. You can be against the war, but dishonest shennenigans is not proper debate.
Click to expand...

No, there was a kitcihen sink approach, none of whihc added up to anything valid, but the arguments that won were related wmd and threat, which of course didn't really exist.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, there was a kitcihen sink approach, none of whihc added up to anything valid, but the arguments that won were related wmd and threat, which of course didn't really exist.
Click to expand...



This is dishonest. He laid out several reasons, the fact that you choose to ignore this, means no meaningful discussion can be had. And apparently according to this leaker, there was WMD found. Odd....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This is dishonest. He laid out several reasons, the fact that you choose to ignore this, means no meaningful discussion can be had. And apparently according to this leaker, there was WMD found. Odd....
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Remember the it's a slam dunk conversation? It was about which one would sell. It wasn't about laying out a valid case. Bush want to sell a war, an unneccessary war. he needed some that the public would buy. So, wmds and threat was the winner. The rest was just part of trying to stack it. none of the reasons held water, not for preemptively invading a couontry not attacking you.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it isn't. Remember the it's a slam dunk conversation? It was about which one would sell. It wasn't about laying out a valid case. Bush want to sell a war, an unneccessary war. he needed some that the public would buy. So, wmds and threat was the winner. The rest was just part of trying to stack it. none of the reasons held water, not for preemptively invading a couontry not attacking you.
Click to expand...


whatever you say boo. I'm sure you've rationalized this in your mind, I won't bother trying to educate you. :thumbs:
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it isn't. Remember the it's a slam dunk conversation? It was about which one would sell. It wasn't about laying out a valid case. Bush want to sell a war, an unneccessary war. he needed some that the public would buy. So, wmds and threat was the winner. The rest was just part of trying to stack it. none of the reasons held water, not for preemptively invading a couontry not attacking you.
Click to expand...

condi "mushroom cloud" rice.
 
Boo Radley said:
Translation: I got tnothing so I quit. :thumbs: :lamo:
Click to expand...



Could be or its, "boo, you are so stubborn in your propaganda I won't waste any time trying to have a meaningful discussion", but you go with your self delusions, I'm not here to stop you. :thumbs:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Could be or its, "boo, you are so stubborn in your propaganda I won't waste any time trying to have a meaningful discussion", but you go with your self delusions, I'm not here to stop you. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I've answered. And explained. you've quit. ;)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
In your mind maybe, but for anyone else except the fake libertarian who keeps thanking you cause he's got an axe to grind, it's apparent to see, no you have not.
Click to expand...

Now you rely on the "apparent to see" as opposed to making a case? That too is weak. we invaded a country that had not attacked us, was of no clear threat, could not hope to attack us. There was no valid reason, no matter what efforts Bush made to pretend there was. And we have his conversation about reasons, noting that he didn't have enough, but was assured that the wmd excuse would fly, a slam dunk. All you have to do is rid yourself of your willing suspension of disbelief.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
In your mind maybe, but for anyone else except the fake libertarian who keeps thanking you cause he's got an axe to grind, it's apparent to see, no you have not.
Click to expand...

Rev, the thing that's apparent to everybody is your evasive debate tactics concealing poor debating skills. Whenever you get backed into a corner you simply pull a Palin, throw a couple ad hominems in for good measure and call it a day.

It's as simple as actually responding to Boo's argument on its merits. But you're failure to do so is a forfeiture of the debate. This site is called "debate politics," Rev, not "mouth foam about politics without any argument to back it up."
 
Boo Radley said:
Now you rely on the "apparent to see" as opposed to making a case? That too is weak. we invaded a country that had not attacked us, was of no clear threat, could not hope to attack us. There was no valid reason, no matter what efforts Bush made to pretend there was. And we have his conversation about reasons, noting that he didn't have enough, but was assured that the wmd excuse would fly, a slam dunk. All you have to do is rid yourself of your willing suspension of disbelief.
Click to expand...


what part of I have no interest in engaging you don't you get, I mean how long and in how many threads have I stated this to you? You are a boring kool-aid drinking propagandist with no origional thought of his own, your "proof" amounts to "because I said so" and you stick your finger in your ears like a child screeching "nuh uh".... You make asinine claims and never back them up. I will tell you as I often do, I won't waste my time on such a closed minded individual such as yourself.

Sorry bro, I have better things to do.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Rev, the thing that's apparent to everybody is your evasive debate tactics concealing poor debating skills. Whenever you get backed into a corner you simply pull a Palin, throw a couple ad hominems in for good measure and call it a day.

It's as simple as actually responding to Boo's argument on its merits. But you're failure to do so is a forfeiture of the debate. This site is called "debate politics," Rev, not "mouth foam about politics without any argument to back it up."
Click to expand...




You have anything on the topic cheerleader? Tell you what, if you want to run your mouth at me, come down to the basement. That's all I have for you, chief.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
what part of I have no interest in engaging you don't you get, I mean how long and in how many threads have I stated this to you? You are a boring kool-aid drinking propagandist with no origional thought of his own, your "proof" amounts to "because I said so" and you stick your finger in your ears like a child screeching "nuh uh".... You make asinine claims and never back them up. I will tell you as I often do, I won't waste my time on such a closed minded individual such as yourself.

Sorry bro, I have better things to do.
Click to expand...

And yet you did engage me, and then when you found you had nothing, quit. ;)
 
Here let me add in a thread about iraqi abuse, blah blah blah, here you are bloviating on about reasons for the iraq war... It's not worth a response but what the hell.


On April 12, 2006 the White House issued a press release in response to an article in the Washington Post that criticized the administration’s claims about weapons of mass destruction and the justifications for war. It stated, "The Washington Post cites Iraqi WMD evidence as the only reason offered by President Bush for unseating Saddam Hussein..... But the President provided many other reasons for liberating Iraq." The press release from the White House listed six other reasons for the war:

1) Saddam Hussein Violated United Nations Security Council Resolutions;
2) Patrolling The UN-Mandated No-Fly Zone, U.S. And Coalition Forces Were Regularly Attacked;
3) Saddam Hussein Brutalized Iraq's Civilian Population;
4) Saddam Hussein Supported And Harbored Terrorist Organizations;
5) Saddam Hussein Had A History Of Pursuing And Using WMD; and
6) Removing Saddam Hussein Brought Freedom To The Heart Of The Middle East.
Click to expand...



So as you see your contention of a "kitchen sink" is nothing but left wing partisan mouth foaming. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
no you are right, there I did make the mistake of engaging you. my bad. I forgot who I was dealing with. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:lamo Still, the facts are the facts. Iraq did not attack us. Had no wmds. Was actively killing large numebrs of people. Was contained. Weren't working with terrorist. Leaving no valid reason reason for invading. You can claim it is because I say so, excusing yourself from the debate, but I'm merely stated what is known. When rumsfeld said absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, he was acknowldging that we had nothing in terms of evidence. And if we took the time then, as some did, it was clear we didn't have the goods on Saddam. And wehn we look at the inapproriate use of intel, we can see how this was sold to us and how we were fooled.
 
Boo Radley said:
:lamo Still, the facts are the facts. Iraq did not attack us. Had no wmds. Was actively killing large numebrs of people. Was contained. Weren't working with terrorist. Leaving no valid reason reason for invading. You can claim it is because I say so, excusing yourself from the debate, but I'm merely stated what is known. When rumsfeld said absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, he was acknowldging that we had nothing in terms of evidence. And if we took the time then, as some did, it was clear we didn't have the goods on Saddam. And wehn we look at the inapproriate use of intel, we can see how this was sold to us and how we were fooled.
Click to expand...



In March 2006, a captured Iraqi document was revealed outlining a May 1999 plan for training terrorists. Under the code name "Blessed July" the top ten graduates of a terrorist training camp were to be sent to London for European operations. Other graduates of this terrorist training camp were to be sent to Iran or the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was to provide logistical support for their missions and selection of targets.

On November 29, 2009 a Czech TV station revealed that Iraqi intelligence agents working for Saddam Hussein had plotted an attack on the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe. TV Nova aired an exclusive report with information that in 1999 Saddam Hussein ordered a terrorist attack on the US-financed radio station from where programs criticizing his regime were broadcast around the world. In 2003, Czech intelligence officers discovered the plot and confiscated the weapons that Iraqi agents had stockpiled including automatic weapons and a rocket propelled grenade.
Click to expand...


I have more boo.
 
Link and prove it has any reason to trust it. As I recall, most of those documents were meaningless because they were not something that was going to be implimented. .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom