• 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!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

VanceMack said:
Well...you COULD start with the actual reason..."Iraqs refusal to comply with UN resolutions regarding accountability and disposition of their WMDs."

Oh...lets just ASSUME that Saddam just dumped all those biological spores out in the middle of the desert. Or space aliens came and wisked them away. The simple FACT remains that George Bush had access to the same intel that the democrats had and EVERYONE made the same conclusions and lets be VERY honest...the ONLY reason we KNOW what we KNOW (and that you continue to bleat on about) is BECAUSE George Bush...unlike the UN and every other world leader ACTED.

SO...does it make me feel better that Saddam and his tribe are dead and gone? Yep. Does it make me feel better knowing there are still thousands of tons of actual weapons and biological spores that are unaccounted for? Nope. Would it have been better if the UN had ACTED instead of impotently passing one failed resolution after another? You bet. Would you and others still have found a reason to hate Bush? Yeah...Im pretty sure you would...
Click to expand...

Hahahaha!

We know what we know, which is that we were wrong about Iraq, because we invaded Iraq.

Brilliant! Problem solved!
 
tryreading said:
That was pretty smart work. Much better than invasion and nation building, don't you think?
Click to expand...
If Clinton had actually acted with efficacy in this regard, there would have been no need for invasion or nation REbuilding.
 
Goobieman said:
If Clinton had actually acted with efficacy in this regard, there would have been no need for invasion or nation REbuilding.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll play for a minute:

If George H. W. Bush had only gone all the way in his action against Iraq, there would have been no need...

If Ronald Reagan had not supported Iraq at the time Hussein was actually actively using WMDs, there would have been no need...

If, if, if...
 
tryreading said:
Hahahaha!

We know what we know, which is that we were wrong about Iraq, because we invaded Iraq.

Brilliant! Problem solved!
Click to expand...

Indeed. Of course...the fact that the UN passed 17 resolutions attempting to force compliance and every democrat and damn near every intel agency in the world believed that Saddam still possessed those weapons and posed a legit threat sort of testifies to that brilliance.

Oh...I know...I know...CLinton was JUSTIFIED attacking numerous times over those 'non-existent' WMDs...
..that no one STILL has the slightest curiosity as to the disposition of said WMDs...hmmm...
 
tryreading said:
Okay, I'll play for a minute:

If George H. W. Bush had only gone all the way in his action against Iraq, there would have been no need...

If Ronald Reagan had not supported Iraq at the time Hussein was actually actively using WMDs, there would have been no need...

If, if, if...
Click to expand...

Thats NOT necessarily an incorrect train of thought. Which ENDED of course when Bush actually acted in a decisive manner...
 
VanceMack said:
Indeed. Of course...the fact that the UN passed 17 resolutions attempting to force compliance and every democrat and damn near every intel agency in the world believed that Saddam still possessed those weapons and posed a legit threat sort of testifies to that brilliance.

Oh...I know...I know...CLinton was JUSTIFIED attacking numerous times over those 'non-existent' WMDs...
..that no one STILL has the slightest curiosity as to the disposition of said WMDs...hmmm...
Click to expand...

You a UN guy? Believe its a good organization that operates in our best interests?

I sure didn't want to have thousands of our troops killed and spend at least a trillion dollars to enforce UN resolutions. Screw the UN.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats NOT necessarily an incorrect train of thought. Which ENDED of course when Bush actually acted in a decisive manner...
Click to expand...

Yes. In the early 1980s Hussein used WMDs on the Iranians and on his own people. But we liked him then, he was our buddy, so it was okay, right?
 
tryreading said:
Okay, I'll play for a minute:
If George H. W. Bush had only gone all the way in his action against Iraq, there would have been no need...
Click to expand...
You were the one lauding ineffectual Clinton's actions, and that's what I responded to. :shrug:
 
Goobieman said:
Supposing facts not in evidence.

You -thnk- he lied, but cannot prove it.
Click to expand...
Not supposing. I saw him there and he was there. If I said he wasn't there, then I would have been lying. Understand?


You think Bush thought he told the truth and can't prove it, either.
The fact is nothing can be proven as truth beyond any doubt. Sometimes you just have to look at the available evidence and make a judgement. Bush lied.


Do you honestly believe Bush didn't lie or are you just supporting him because he's a republican? Had Clinton invaded and found no WMDs you would have crucified him, correct?
 
Goobieman said:
You were the one lauding ineffectual Clinton's actions, and that's what I responded to. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not lauding, but definitely considering his actions geometrically the the better of the two options.

Course, this isn't about Clinton, its about Bush and the invasion.
 
tryreading said:
Okay, I'll play for a minute:

If George H. W. Bush had only gone all the way in his action against Iraq, there would have been no need...
Click to expand...

I agree with this. In fact, as I recall it, a lot of his base was fairly unhappy with the decision not to finish and looked at it as putting it on future administrations.
 
buck said:
I agree with this. In fact, as I recall it, a lot of his base was fairly unhappy with the decision not to finish and looked at it as putting it on future administrations.
Click to expand...

I do agree with his decision, though.
 
tryreading said:
You a UN guy? Believe its a good organization that operates in our best interests?

I sure didn't want to have thousands of our troops killed and spend at least a trillion dollars to enforce UN resolutions. Screw the UN.
Click to expand...

Thats precisely the point. The UN was impotent in their reponse. The world was impotent in their response. Following the firsat gulf war the UN inspection teams catalogued thousands og gallons of varying types of biological weapons and even more biological spores used for the creation of more weapons. They identified delivery systems. those remain unaccounted for. 11 years is a loong time to hide, sell, trade, bury, or perhaps even destroy weapons.
 
tryreading said:
Yes. In the early 1980s Hussein used WMDs on the Iranians and on his own people. But we liked him then, he was our buddy, so it was okay, right?
Click to expand...

Buddy? No...at the time he was seen as the lesser of two evils. Every president since the end of WW2 has identified the need to stop the south and westward expansion of the soviet union. When Carter lost Iran it was deemed necessary to create another alliance. Yes...Saddam was as ruthless and brutal and ugly in the 80's as always. No...we didnt condone it but yes...we overlooked it. Hindsight is a bitch, isnt it...especially hindsight from the comfort of an armchair where you have the luxury of other people making tough decisions and all you have to to is whine about their judgements.
 
USA-1 said:
Not supposing. I saw him there and he was there. If I said he wasn't there, then I would have been lying. Understand?
Click to expand...
Yes -- I uderstand that you're tying to backpedal and save face.
Unfortunately, you cannot Your defintion of a lie is invalid.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats precisely the point. The UN was impotent in their reponse. The world was impotent in their response. Following the firsat gulf war the UN inspection teams catalogued thousands og gallons of varying types of biological weapons and even more biological spores used for the creation of more weapons. They identified delivery systems. those remain unaccounted for. 11 years is a loong time to hide, sell, trade, bury, or perhaps even destroy weapons.
Click to expand...

I sure don't want the US to go to war for an impotent UN.

I don't the US to go to war for any foolish or misguided reasons.
 
VanceMack said:
Buddy? No...at the time he was seen as the lesser of two evils. Every president since the end of WW2 has identified the need to stop the south and westward expansion of the soviet union. When Carter lost Iran it was deemed necessary to create another alliance. Yes...Saddam was as ruthless and brutal and ugly in the 80's as always. No...we didnt condone it but yes...we overlooked it. Hindsight is a bitch, isnt it...especially hindsight from the comfort of an armchair where you have the luxury of other people making tough decisions and all you have to to is whine about their judgements.
Click to expand...

Why are you whining about Carter, and other partisans here whining about Clinton? You're leaving out a couple of administrations, aren't you?

Wouldn't it all be over now if HW Bush had gone all the way?
 
tryreading said:
Why are you whining about Carter, and other partisans here whining about Clinton? You're leaving out a couple of administrations, aren't you?

Wouldn't it all be over now if HW Bush had gone all the way?
Click to expand...

You have ANY understanding of the middle east? During the first Gulf War Bush went precisely as far as he could with the 'coalition'. You might want to understand a little about the arab people and what would likely have happened if we had gone into Baghdad. That being said...Im critical of Carter...but you may note NOT critical of Clinton as commander in chief ( tho I admit to READILY pointing out the mindless liberal ideologues on this site that swallow everything Clinton fed them yet call Bush a liar for making identical claims) and have also FREQUENTLY here praised Obama for the anti terror efforts. So try peddling your partisan bull**** elsewhere.
 
tryreading said:
I do agree with his decision, though.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do. Based on what you've said so far, you seem to be a fan of constantly kicking the can to future administrations. It worked really well with N.Korea, no?
 
Last edited:
washingtonpost.com: Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits

Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.

With Cheney taking the lead in the administration last August in advocating military action against Iraq by claiming it had weapons of mass destruction, the visits by the vice president and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here," one senior agency official said yesterday.
 
VanceMack said:
You have ANY understanding of the middle east? During the first Gulf War Bush went precisely as far as he could with the 'coalition'. You might want to understand a little about the arab people and what would likely have happened if we had gone into Baghdad. That being said...Im critical of Carter...but you may note NOT critical of Clinton as commander in chief ( tho I admit to READILY pointing out the mindless liberal ideologues on this site that swallow everything Clinton fed them yet call Bush a liar for making identical claims) and have also FREQUENTLY here praised Obama for the anti terror efforts. So try peddling your partisan bull**** elsewhere.
Click to expand...

No, seems to me you were mentioning the Clinton and even Carter administrations. That was my point. But there were others in between. And, you know, they were of the other party.


Also, I haven't called Bush a liar. I referred to him as a fool because of the unnecessary re-invasion he wanted so badly.

But someone in the White House was misleading other leaders with the 'alternative intelligence' scheme.
 
buck said:
I'm sure you do. Based on what you've said so far, you seem to be a fan of constantly kicking the can to future administrations. It worked really well with N.Korea, no?
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of President Bush's decision not to go further. He was obviously a proponent of that too, so I'm in good company.
 
tryreading said:
I'm a fan of President Bush's decision not to go further. He was obviously a proponent of that too, so I'm in good company.
Click to expand...

Not sure how agreeing with one of the individuals (Clinton, Bush1 and Carter being others) that allowed North Korea to obtain nukes and allegedly ship the tech around the world is considered good company. However, Bush's hand was rather forced, both politically and militarily, by the decision to invade iraq.
 
buck said:
Not sure how agreeing with one of the individuals (Clinton, Bush1 and Carter being others) that allowed North Korea to obtain nukes and allegedly ship the tech around the world is considered good company. However, Bush's hand was rather forced, both politically and militarily, by the decision to invade iraq.
Click to expand...

Was agreeing with Bush 1 on his decision to stop where he did in Iraq.
 
tryreading said:
I understand, but they gave a man who wanted to optionally invade Iraq the power to do it. I just appreciate the people in Congress that knew better.
Click to expand...

So do I. I would have had no problem if all who shirked their responsibility lost their jobs regardles sof party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom