:mad: "Should have" does not answer the question.

WHY DID THEY NOT?

We are in Iraq because of terrorism. WMD were part of the sales pitch, a valid sales pitch...Saddam not only had WMD but he planned on evolving and expanding his existing programs. Saddam had an arrangement with al qaeda to develop WMD (according to the Clinton indictment of Osama).

Lets not distract ourselves, kang...I know you must, but try not to.

Well I guess Pat does not want to answer the question. Must be too difficult. Here I will make it multiple choice.

Question: Why did the south not resort to Pat's Tactics (mutilating solders, using civilians as shields, ect) in the "War of Northern aggression"?

A. They DID commit atrocities and Pat will not admit it because...
- it would take away the "but the north did..." accusation
- it did not work as planned so we don't talk about it
- it would make the south look bad
- they don't count because the north was the invader
- the south would loose its "moral high ground"

B. They DID NOT commit atrocities and Pat will not admit that....
- they had high moral standards that would not allow it
- the whole southern gentleman thing
- they followed some code of conduct (rules of engagement)
- there were laws against it (even southern laws)
- it would have turned others against their cause
- they were not as bloodthirsty as Pat


Come on Pat, you openly support the killings (of US personnel) in Iraq. Why did your heroes in the Civil war not have the same view? Is it possible that they did not have the same twisted sense of "rightness" that you have? Funny how you claim that Bush'ists, as you put it, are bloodthirsty. Your (twisted) morals seem completely situational, dependent only on YOUR definition of legality. If Pat's cause is best served, then by all means, torture, kill, mutilate, maim in any way you please......

Um, no, we were told we were in Iraq because of WMD, not terrosim, and I’m not talking about this old stuff we just learned about. WMD was a sales pitch, all right, but an invalid one. Where are they (again, not the stuff we just learned about)?

Saddam had no arrangement with Al Qaeda, that’s long been established. They barely tolerated each other.

And your sig:
All that really proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that they rolled trucks around. We can only guess what they used them for. You say “it’s obvious: WMD’s” and I say it was part of his ruse to make Isreal and Iran THINK he had WMD’s.

From Jan. 2003 SOTU address:


"These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

"Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."


My point is - Bush also discussed terrorism and human rights before the war.

Any consensus yet?

Didn't think so.


(Yawn.......)

When do we invade a few African countries because of human rights violations?

EXCELLENT POINT!! Imagine if the energy that went into these missives could be diverted to a cogent discussion leading to the correct policy... Perhaps W and his main minions (Karl Rove, Karen Hughes et al) should start trolling this website for foreign policy insight

Mabye just troll this and similar sites to really get an idea of the mood of the people and how divided and confused they are.

Didn't we try that? Bush I. Delta Force. Mogadishu. Black Hawk Down. Clinton. Cut and Run I.

Considering the fact that almost any insecticide manufacturing plant can also manufacture a number of chemical weapon agents very easily. The US government needs to take over all insecticide manufacturing immediately.

Kang has a bad habit, like most lefties, of being absolutely wrong. Our entry into Iraq was a part of the war on terror, not the war on WMD...To say that was the main reason Bush employed for the invasion is simply a lie....As early as Sept 12th, 2001, he was outlining state sponsors of terrorism and the "axis of evil," not producers and WMD. We invaded Iraq because they were part of the terrorist network.

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." -- GW Bush (September 20th, 2001)

Sorry Mul. wrong again. go read the resolution in congress giving the authority to Bush. it's all about wmd.

Read my signature line. Fact remains. Saddam had connections with Osama Bin Laden, Saddam had an arrangement to supply WMD to Osama, Saddam was a genocidal maniac making Slobodan Milosevich pale in comparison, Saddam failed to account for WMD and failed to allow inspectors access.

No, as I've told you many times, that is a lie. There was absolutely no connection whatsoever with the Hussein Administration and Al Queda. Your continual assertion that he did notwithstanding the slightest scrutiny.

Quote:

Saddam was a genocidal maniac making Slobodan Milosevich pale in comparison, Saddam failed to account for WMD and failed to allow inspectors access.

Irrelevant to the invasion and ongoing attempt at occupation. Bush lied, people died.

Ya, heard that before at a Maoist front anti-war protest. I think their agenda was not anti-war, but instead pro-communist in disguise. Since I know for a fact they are agenda driven liars, I would assume your agenda is similarly a lie.

In response to 9-11, a lot of people should be dead. In fact a lot more than are. That is the only thing socialists and Islamics understand, violence. The only reason we have lost as many lives as we have is because of the socialist and pro-Islamic fascist demands of our at-home-enemy in the political left. They have made artform out of sabotaging a war at home, making it impossible to fight, and encouraging the enemy to keep killing soldiers because it is working in their favor.

Maybe you shoiuld read it. Although continued development of WMD was cited, the majority of the resolution (approved by Republicans and Democrats alike) concerned other areas of concern.

First of all, the 500 WMD that were found by the US after the war that were supposedly destroyed by Saddam and were never discovered by the UN "weapons inspectors" prove that the concern listed in the resolution was accurate (refers to existing WMD/says nothing about "only new" WMD). It talks about inspector access and destrying existing WMD:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the ceasefire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on Oct. 31, 1998;

The resolution discusses many reasons for war that have nothing to do with WMD including:

repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,"

violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait


Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Nice cut and paste. Maybe you should reread it.

par 1 on the Gulf war
par 2 WMD
par 3 WMD
par 4 WMD
par 5 WMD
par 6 WMD
par 7 repression of civilians
par 8 WMD
par 9 hostility towards US
par 10 members of al-Qaida are in Iraq
par 11 aid to terrorists
par 12 WMD
par 13 WMD
par 14 WMD
par 15 UN resolutions
par 16 UN resolution
par 17 regime change
par 18 work with UN
par 19 WMD
par 20 retribution on 911 attackers
par 21 retribution on 911 attackers
par 22 terrorism
par 23 restore peace in Persian Gulf region

yeah 10 of 23 on WMD, everything else pales in comparison.

The admin pushed WMD and the imminent threat including nuclear to the US. That's what sold this war.


But nice revision of history, fint.

A rather silly statement, but par for your course. You've yet to answer anyone that has asked, but exactly how does ending the illegal war in Iraq further any socialist cause? Be precise.

Quote:

In response to 9-11, a lot of people should be dead. In fact a lot more than are. That is the only thing socialists and Islamics understand, violence.

So how many more should have died, exactly? 200,000? 500,000? 1,000,000?

Quote:

The only reason we have lost as many lives as we have is because of the socialist and pro-Islamic fascist demands of our at-home-enemy in the political left. They have made artform out of sabotaging a war at home, making it impossible to fight, and encouraging the enemy to keep killing soldiers because it is working in their favor.

Nonsense, the US government's loses are due to Bush ordering them into nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not one single other cause.

How many more times will the rationale for all of this change? How can so many people have such short memories? How much of the technology that SH had was supplied by the US in the 80s?

I find it disturbing that so many will change their stories to match the current reasoning from Washington. And these reasons span many administrations, not just the current one.

International diplomacy is a complex multi dimensional Chess game and sometimes I wonder how close we are to checkmate.

If he had so much American technology, then where was it during the Gulf War? If you research the military hardware that was trashed by US military force, you will find that it was almost all Russian and French.

Russian Aircraft: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/iraq/aircraft/

Russian Tanks: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/agency/army.htm

Artillary and other weapons: Russian, French, Chinese.

You are spreading another leftist lie.