• 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!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

Boo Radley said:
When you fail to understand it's not dishonesty on my part. You use that word too freely and in doing so more dishonest than anyone on the site.
Click to expand...

That's just a further example of your well established dishonesty.
 
Montecresto said:
This is the type of bull**** attitude that provokes me to anger about our government when it gets ready to go to war. Might makes right and **** you if you don't like it, get beside us, or get out of the way! That Saddam Hussein was not in anyway connected to 9/11 and that he was never a threat to the United States was irrelevant to the Bush doctrine born before he was president and supported by such neocons as Chrystal, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a handful of others.


The beginning of the end of the international security system had actually come slightly earlier, on September 12, 2002, when President George W. Bush, to the surprise of many, brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm. "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions," Bush said. But he warned that he would act alone if the UN failed to cooperate.

Washington's threat was reaffirmed a month later by Congress, when it gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq without getting approval from the UN first. The American message seemed clear: as a senior administration official put it at the time, "we don't need the Security Council."


Why the Security Council Failed - Council on Foreign Relations
Click to expand...

The US didn't need the UN security Council. They are like the French.

Rather than flailing away at "Neo-Cons", where is your actual adjective-free complaint?
 
Grant said:
The US didn't need the UN security Council. They are like the French.

Rather than flailing away at "Neo-Cons", where is your actual adjective-free complaint?
Click to expand...

I disagree about the security council, unless its to be abolished and no, not really.
 
Grant said:
You'll notice that the connection between terrorists and Iraq was casually mentioned but they again acknowledged the existence of WMD, if not its possible use. That was mentioned at the earlier date I posted. The claim that "one also has to build the peace' was when the troubles really began with the Islamic terrorists in Iraq, and the French still didn't want to get involved despite their stating earlier how important building the peace was.

Geez, that Freedom Fries idea was a joke! Are the French still upset about that???

France could have helped to 'stabilize" Iraq but didn't. Who cares what they think? France, as always, has bitched about the Americans from the sidelines despite the Americans buried by the hundreds of thousands over there. Does anyone out there really care what the French think?

I'm skeptical you are American, by the way.
Click to expand...

You brought the French into it.
 
Grant said:
That's just a further example of your well established dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't know what the words means. Like j, you never give anything specific or concrete. Just lip to avoid actually discussing an issue.
 
Grant said:
I quoted a French leader who had also agreed that Saddam had WMD.. There is a difference.

You aren't American, correct?
Click to expand...

Left over, and not growing an gathering. Make distinctions. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Left over, and not growing an gathering. Make distinctions. ;)
Click to expand...

Sigh* More defense of Saddam from you....Are you Iraqi Joe? Anyway, there is no way at this point to definitively say one way or another...We know that Saddam was playing roulette with inspectors, ushering stock piles out of country, and at least representing that he had more.

The difference between you and I Joe, is that when I disagree with you, I talk to you rather than the chicken **** method of bringing me up to other posters. In any case we get it, you were, and remain a Saddam Hussein supporter.
 
Montecresto said:
Yep, and then the machine up'd the ante, fomenting fear amongst Americans after they were cornered due to Blix having found NOTHING, no smoking gun at all, we heard, ".......do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city?" And then reports that his capability to deliver such was 6-9 months distance. THAT was complete hyperbole, meant to sway American opinion just like has been used on Americans so many times in the past. However, Saddam Hussein was NEVER capable of delivering a mushroom cloud over an American city. Maybe one day, someday, Americans will learn the lesson, that the White House is often eager to go to war, when such is far from necessary.
Click to expand...

how in the heck could Saddam have gotten a nuclear detonation on the North American continent? "Imminent and grave" is ridiculous.
 
j-mac said:
Sigh* More defense of Saddam from you....Are you Iraqi Joe? Anyway, there is no way at this point to definitively say one way or another...We know that Saddam was playing roulette with inspectors, ushering stock piles out of country, and at least representing that he had more.

The difference between you and I Joe, is that when I disagree with you, I talk to you rather than the chicken **** method of bringing me up to other posters. In any case we get it, you were, and remain a Saddam Hussein supporter.
Click to expand...

That's stupid enough to be called dishonest. No one is defending Saddam. So, try again.

And no, there was and us absolutely no evidence of any active programs. Quit klinging to unsupported maybes of the desperate. Nothing was found to support the administration claims, period.

oh, and no you don't. You talk about far more than I do you, another dishonest bit from you. I'd rather you just talk issues and not personalities. But you don't.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's stupid enough to be called dishonest. No one is defending Saddam. So, try again.

And no, there was and us absolutely no evidence of any active programs. Quit klinging to unsupported maybes of the desperate. Nothing was found to support the administration claims, period.
Click to expand...

That's also true of Obama's destruction of Libya. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies.
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps, but we're not occupying Libya.
Click to expand...

We destroyed it. You think not occupying it makes that horror better?

I thought your argument was that Iraq was based on lies. So was the destruction of Libya.

An inconvenient truth democrats choose to ignore.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
We destroyed it. You think not occupying it makes that horror better?

I thought your argument was that Iraq was based on lies. So was the destruction of Libya.

An inconvenient truth democrats choose to ignore.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know my argue meant. Lies are only part of it. If was foolish, costly, arrogant, outside the UN, hurt more than helped anyone.

And I don't ignore it. I just don't pretend it is the same.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think you know my argue meant. Lies are only part of it. If was foolish, costly, arrogant, outside the UN, hurt more than helped anyone.

And I don't ignore it. I just don't pretend it is the same.
Click to expand...

That's true of both corporatist wars in Iraq and Libya.

The only difference was the letter behind the name of the man most responsible.

The good news is the world has been awakened.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's stupid enough to be called dishonest.
Click to expand...

Then you should cut it out...

No one is defending Saddam.
Click to expand...

Not true...You are.

And no, there was and us absolutely no evidence of any active programs.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely true, according to the UN final report it was spelled out. Not that they had solid proof of active programs, but that they couldn't rule it out either. You should be honest.

Quit klinging to unsupported maybes of the desperate. Nothing was found to support the administration claims, period.
Click to expand...

Man, you arrogant libs really do think if you repeat the lie often enough, that it magically becomes truth don't you?

oh, and no you don't. You talk about far more than I do you, another dishonest bit from you.
Click to expand...

No, I really don't Joe, but why stop lying now?

I'd rather you just talk issues and not personalities. But you don't.
Click to expand...

:lamo man you are full of yourself...Hint: you're not that clever. ;)
 
BlackAsCoal said:
That's true of both corporatist wars in Iraq and Libya.

The only difference was the letter behind the name of the man most responsible.

The good news is the world has been awakened.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the only difference. Neither is good, but they are not the same.
 
j-mac said:
Then you should cut it out...



Not true...You are.



That is not entirely true, according to the UN final report it was spelled out. Not that they had solid proof of active programs, but that they couldn't rule it out either. You should be honest.



Man, you arrogant libs really do think if you repeat the lie often enough, that it magically becomes truth don't you?



No, I really don't Joe, but why stop lying now?



:lamo man you are full of yourself...Hint: you're not that clever. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be clever. Just honest and on point. You're the one playing, and not staying on point. You're the one throwing out strawmen and silliness, I assume because you have nothing of substance.

And no, there was nothing that backed Bush's claims. Nothing. Not from the UN. Not from us. You can't change the facts.
 
humbolt said:
I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.
Click to expand...

Just remember, the US Ambassador to Libya died at a secret CIA base after a clandestine meeting with the Turkish ambassador and Hillary and Barack knew nothing about any of it.

It's ironic that in order to defend Obama his supporters are required to paint him as an idiot.
 
jmotivator said:
Just remember, the US Ambassador to Libya died at a secret CIA base after a clandestine meeting with the Turkish ambassador and Hillary and Barack knew nothing about any of it.

It's ironic that in order to defend Obama his supporters are required to paint him as an idiot.
Click to expand...

True. He doesn't know much about anything his administration does. According to Obama in his recent OReilly interview, just a few boneheads ruined entire agencies and a significant piece of foreign policy. Who knows how bad it could've been if a few more boneheads were around? So Obama has done us a favor by limiting the number of boneheads in his administration to a select few. Thanks, Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom