• 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

Really?



So, Saddam firing on Jets in the no fly zone is perfectly fine with you is it?


j-mac

Yeah, he couldn't hit any and that scared us to death. There was even rummor that Bush wanted us to fly low and get hit so he'd have a excuse (bay of Token anyone?). But that was just a rumor as far as I know.

Again J, anyone who wants to suspend disbleif and accept any reasonat all, no matter how weak. Saddam was contained and unable to hit us at all.
 
Really?



So, Saddam firing on Jets in the no fly zone is perfectly fine with you is it?


j-mac

In all context this is silly, the US bombed Iraq for decades, this was one of the rare times they initiated, and they usually got blown the **** away.
 
Yeah, he couldn't hit any and that scared us to death. There was even rummor that Bush wanted us to fly low and get hit so he'd have a excuse (bay of Token anyone?). But that was just a rumor as far as I know.

Again J, anyone who wants to suspend disbleif and accept any reasonat all, no matter how weak. Saddam was contained and unable to hit us at all.



As one who was in theater for operation southern watch, I find your dismissal of our mission for you politics quite insulting. I also find your repeating of lies, (no we did not fly "low for bush") abhorrent. We were fired upon and in harms way. Sorry that doesn't fit into your fringe left politics. show some respect.
 
As one who was in theater for operation southern watch, I find your dismissal of our mission for you politics quite insulting. I also find your repeating of lies, (no we did not fly "low for bush") abhorrent. We were fired upon and in harms way. Sorry that doesn't fit into your fringe left politics. show some respect.

Be isulted if you like, but the fact was they couldn't touch you. Nor did they. And I didn't say you did fly low. Read for comprehension this time.
 
Be isulted if you like, but the fact was they couldn't touch you. Nor did they. And I didn't say you did fly low. Read for comprehension this time.



sorry my bad your rumor mongering. And they coudln't touch us? Khobar towers ring a bell? I know you had a cushy enlistment, but please don't try to dismiss others sacrifice for you politics.
 
sorry my bad your rumor mongering. And they coudln't touch us? Khobar towers ring a bell? I know you had a cushy enlistment, but please don't try to dismiss others sacrifice for you politics.

In 1996? Well, that excuses everything. And weren't these militants from the Afghan war? What leap are you goign to use next?
 
Your right, we were all there enjoying the sun. Please boo your obnoxious dismissall game is played. Have a nice day.

Again, not what anyone said. But you can't reach back to 1996 to justify 2003, espeically when you have different people involved.
 
Again, not what anyone said. But you can't reach back to 1996 to justify 2003, espeically when you have different people involved.



It's a lie to state that I used 1996 to justify 2003. Please show some integrity.
 
It's a lie to state that I used 1996 to justify 2003. Please show some integrity.

really, we were talking about justification for the invasion, the Iraqi firing at US planes was envoked, and when that was shot down you threw in 1996. Do you even connect the things you say to anything being discussed or are they merely random shout outs?
 
really, we were talking about justification for the invasion, the Iraqi firing at US planes was envoked, and when that was shot down you threw in 1996. Do you even connect the things you say to anything being discussed or are they merely random shout outs?




I'm not even wasting time with you. You made up the link in the conversation and lied about it.
 
I'm not even wasting time with you. You made up the link in the conversation and lied about it.

False. Follow the conversation. Again, I ask do you just shout **** out with no connection to the discussion? If you do, that might explain things.
 
False. Follow the conversation. Again, I ask do you just shout **** out with no connection to the discussion? If you do, that might explain things.




What is all this? you trying to evade your obnoxious dismissal of your fellow veterans who served under southern watch? Do I detect some hostility?
 
What is all this? you trying to evade your obnoxious dismissal of your fellow veterans who served under southern watch? Do I detect some hostility?

Only in your mind do you detect something. Any dismissal I have it is for poor reasoning and making excuses. Idiots try to make that something it isn't. But that's not new.

But remember, comments were made in a context, part of a discussion. And should be addressed in that context. Shout outs have to be seen as part of that discussion.
 
Only in your mind do you detect something. Any dismissal I have it is for poor reasoning and making excuses. Idiots try to make that something it isn't. But that's not new.

But remember, comments were made in a context, part of a discussion. And should be addressed in that context. Shout outs have to be seen as part of that discussion.



wow "idiots"... That's a new one for you boo... Losing composure now? :lol:


seriously why do you dismiss our sacrifices for your politics?
 
wow "idiots"... That's a new one for you boo... Losing composure now? :lol:


seriously why do you dismiss our sacrifices for your politics?

No one has dismiessed sacrifices. That's why I call those who say anyone has an idiot. it's a cheap tactic, and not worthy of any serious person. If I have any contempt for anyone on your side, it would be toward those who use this cowardly tactic. You can't debate the logic, so you claim something that never happened. Good job. :thumbs:
 
Boo Radley
But the fact remains, Saddam was not working with al Qeada.

That's untrue.

He was not attacking us,

That also is untrue.

was not behind 9/11

That's probably true.
and wasn't a threat to us.

That is untrue.

Only the UN could enforce their ceasefire.

That's untrue.

We used intel inapproropriately.

That's questionable.
I'm sorry some are too willing to accept anything, but you have presented nothing that would convince me otherwise.

The facts should speak for themselves. It's up to you to familiarize yourself with the facts before commenting.
You can address these points, or you can use rev's tactic of being insulting. The choice is yours.

My intention is not to insult you, but you clearly cannot be taken seriously. And the pity is that there are just too many who really don't have a handle on the situation but feel qualified to respond anyway. We may as well be discussing extraterrestrials.
 
No one has dismiessed sacrifices. That's why I call those who say anyone has an idiot. it's a cheap tactic, and not worthy of any serious person. If I have any contempt for anyone on your side, it would be toward those who use this cowardly tactic. You can't debate the logic, so you claim something that never happened. Good job. :thumbs:



you are lying. but it's nice to see you having a meltdown for being called out for your disgracefull dismissal of others sacrifice. hero.



Yeah, he couldn't hit any and that scared us to death. There was even rummor that Bush wanted us to fly low and get hit so he'd have a excuse (bay of Token anyone?). But that was just a rumor as far as I know.

Again J, anyone who wants to suspend disbleif and accept any reasonat all, no matter how weak. Saddam was contained and unable to hit us at all.
 
you are lying. but it's nice to see you having a meltdown for being called out for your disgracefull dismissal of others sacrifice. hero.

No one is having a melt down, and no one is lying besides maybe you. Your tactic is dishonest and cheap. But that's about it. ;)
 
No one is having a melt down, and no one is lying besides maybe you. Your tactic is dishonest and cheap. But that's about it. ;)



so you didn't call me an idiot for pointing out your cheapening of others sacrifice for your far left politics?
 
That's untrue.

No, he wasn't.


That also is untrue.

No, he wasn't.


That's probably true.

As there is no evidence showing he was, we can not state he was. So, it is true.

That is untrue.

No, he wasn't. He could never do anything to us and live. He wasn't crazy, and worried more about surviving than attacking us. So, you would be wrong on this point.

That's untrue.

From a legal standpoint, no. UN mandates are a UN concern.

That's questionable.

That was the ruling of the inspector general. But even without, using curveball, who was doubted by the CIA, using coerased testimoney that was dubted by the CIA, and using the heros in error who had betrayed with Iran once before, all with intel that was doubted, and it was the only intel not part of Clinton's intel, which reached a different conclusion, I do believe any reasopnable person would also conclude that the intel was used inappropriately.

The facts should speak for themselves. It's up to you to familiarize yourself with the facts before commenting.

I am fully familiar with the facts. I'm waiting for your side to catch up. ;)


My intention is not to insult you, but you clearly cannot be taken seriously. And the pity is that there are just too many who really don't have a handle on the situation but feel qualified to respond anyway. We may as well be discussing extraterrestrials.

And yet that is what you try to do. What I have stated is factually supported. We had next to nothing to back Bush's claims. He used intel that was doubted by others. Saddam could not msuter any kind of serious threat. And was unlikely to do unless we invaed (also part of the record if you will remember). He did not have active programs or stockpiles, also part of the record. he could not be growing and gathering. He was well contained and was not working with al Qaeda, nor was he ever likely to as the two were enemies. I believe Powell was corect that we had the fever and wanted to believe. So, we accept anythign that is presented without asking critical questions. And some still want to believe despite the evidence. No stock piles were found. No working with al Qaeda proven (contacts are nto working together. We have contacts with our enemies, but that doesn't equal working with them). Nealry everything present has been found flawed and wanting. Some still bring up Salmon pak, but that proved not to bwe what it was claimed. Rev present a lot of disputed material above, which is why he won't link it.

This is an old debate. Most of us know the links. Lord knows they have been presented often enough. I used to save them and post the links over and over again. Perhaps people think enoyugh time has gone by that no one will remember them, so they can pretend they don't exist. i don't know. But, don't convince yourself I don't know this issue well.
 
Joe, is firing on another countries planes an act of war?


j-mac
 
Joe, is firing on another countries planes an act of war?


j-mac

No. Seriously, some questioned the legality of those planes, but with no possibility of hititng those planes, it can't be used as a rationale for war.
 
Back
Top Bottom