well, did we win?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Not just a dictator, the most evil of all dictators in modern world history. Those soldiers did not sacrifice for nothing and countless innocent lives are spared as a result.
But you go ahead and stick with the negative and continue to blame one man as if he can act alone.

You bet. Bush didn't have to ask the House and Senate to pass a War Act against Iraq.

But he did.

Yes, he had plenty of accomplices. Many making the decision based upon the lies Bush told.

If you think the war was a good thing, and worth it, stand up and make your own argument

[Antitrust32]

you really think Bush just made up lies and told them to Congress?

it was either one of two things or both:

1) he was given wrong information

2) Saddam and Iraq got their WMD's out of the country while the UN and US were threatening them but before they were attacked.

I'd say the answer is most likely 1

Its great that Saddam is dead. Its horrible we went to war in Iraq and found no WMD's. this war should have never happened and it has cost our country way too much (lives, dollars, etc)

But nobody will ever be able to convince me that Bush knowingly lied to Congress for the sake of lying. Bush is not an evil man. Saddam was an evil man.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you really think Bush just made up lies and told them to Congress?

Geeshus focking cripes, that's not what the hell I said.

I said that what Bush told Congress were lies. False information. Untruths.

it was either one of two things or both:

Or other things that you neglect to mention. But the information was false. The decision to go to war was made based upon lies.

Instead of addressing my post, why don't you answer 'Zig's question, and post your own opinion?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Its great that Saddam is dead. Its horrible we went to war in Iraq and found no WMD's. this war should have never happened and it has cost our country way too much (lives, dollars, etc)

But nobody will ever be able to convince me that Bush knowingly lied to Congress for the sake of lying. Bush is not an evil man. Saddam was an evil man.

you really think Bush just made up lies and told them to Congress?

it was either one of two things or both:

1) he was given wrong information...Bullcrap, he (Cheney & Co,) didn't like the first info and told George Tenet to 'fix' it..

2) Saddam and Iraq got their WMD's out of the country while the UN and US were threatening them but before they were attacked.,,..More bullcrap, the Israeli's took out his nuclear plants years before...so he had some mustard gas, big deal...

I'd say the answer is most likely 1

Its great that Saddam is dead. Its horrible we went to war in Iraq... nuff said... this war should have never happened and it has cost our country way too much (lives, dollars,)

But nobody will ever be able to convince me that Bush knowingly lied to Congress for the sake of lying....It wasn't for sake of lying, he wanted to be a wartime pres and avenge the hit Saddam had on daddy.. Bush is not an evil man.,he's a stupid man... Saddam was an evil man....yes but so what, was absolutely no threat to us..did you shed a tear when he gassed his own people?

[Antitrust32]

yeah, I have huge problems with dictators gassing their own people. I'm all for the US taking those people out. Though with an assassination, special op thing.. not a full out war.

you really really think we went to war so Bush get revenge for the hit on his dad? absolutely no way.

at least the "war for Oil" arguement has credibility. the "war for daddy" arguement is not credible.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

yeah, I have huge problems with dictators gassing their own people. I'm all for the US taking those people out. Though with an assassination, special op thing.. not a full out war.

You do realize that it is illegal via international law - and an act of war - for one country to enter another's borders and assassinate another country's leader just because they don't like him?

Right?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

You do realize that it is illegal via international law - and an act of war - for one country to enter another's borders and assassinate another country's leader just because they don't like him?

Right?

you mean like physically going into pakistan to take out bin Laden??

I'm all for it though. save american lives. take out those rat bastards.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you mean like physically going into pakistan to take out bin Laden??

Yes, we crossed Pakistan's borders without permission and broke international law doing it, but no, we were not declaring war on Pakistan.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

yeah, I have huge problems with dictators gassing their own people. I'm all for the US taking those people out. Though with an assassination, special op thing.. not a full out war.

you really really think we went to war so Bush get revenge for the hit on his dad? absolutely no way.

at least the "war for Oil" arguement has credibility. the "war for daddy" arguement is not credible.

one well trained sniper or a drone attack was all we needed.

war for oil-like what just happened in libya??

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

think we went to war so Bush get revenge for the hit on his dad? absolutely no way.

at least the "war for Oil" arguement has credibility. the "war for daddy" arguement is not credible.

First, yes, there are people in the Bush administration that have publicly said Bush was very interested in retaliating for the attempted assassination of his father.

Secondly, the "war for oil" argument has no credibility whatsoever - unless you are a country that illegally declares war on another so they can steal their natural resources. You know, like if Iraq declared war on us, to steal our oil?

Good grief. You can't just invade countries because you don't like them or you want their stuff!

[Antitrust32]

we invaded them because we thought they had WMDs

I should have said "at least the oil reason makes more sense than the daddy reason" credibility was a poor term.

There is no way on earth we went to war because of vengence over daddy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

we invaded them because we thought they had WMDs

I should have said "at least the oil reason makes more sense than the daddy reason" credibility was a poor term.

There is no way on earth we went to war because of vengence over daddy.

We went to war for a variety of made up, shifting reasons, which most our fellow international community thought illegal. And yeah, one was indeed that Bush wanted to get Saddam. Again, you can't declare war, just because you don't like what another country is doing. Which is why George W. Bush can literally not fly out of the United States to Europe, or risk arrest for war crimes.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

yeah, I have huge problems with dictators gassing their own people. I'm all for the US taking those people out. Though with an assassination, special op thing.. not a full out war.

you really really think we went to war so Bush get revenge for the hit on his dad? absolutely no way.

at least the "war for Oil" arguement has credibility. the "war for daddy" arguement is not credible.

Daddy one of the reasons,,,Everyone of his 'reasons' proved to non-existent.
If it was oil, why didn't we drain their oilfields?...

According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." However, former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council Richard A. Clarke believes Mr. Bush came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace. In 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency released a report saying that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.




^ Andrew Buncombe, "Richard Clarke: 'Iraq could be much more of a problem for America than if Saddam had stayed in power', The Monday Interview: Former White House security chief", The Independent, Washington, June 14, 2004..

...how'd that work out...

[Clip-Clop]

People ARE weapons of mass-destruction, particularly brain washed zealots with a sense of purpose and a plan, I think we should have learned that by now, no?
The convenient Bush is a moron argument is always a great one, dumbass was the smartest guy in the room that one day when virtually everyone said "yeah, let's do this."
Based on the mission statement posted above all three points were accomplished.

We didn't invade them because we thought they had chemical weapons. That was the excuse. Stop believing their propaganda.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

People ARE weapons of mass-destruction, particularly brain washed zealots with a sense of purpose and a plan, I think we should have learned that by now, no? ..
15 of the 19 911 terrorists were Saudi's, none from Iraq...why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia?..

The convenient Bush is a moron argument is always a great one, dumbass was the smartest guy in the room that one day when virtually everyone said "yeah, let's do this."
Based on the mission statement posted above all three points were accomplished.

'When Bush stood with his arm around a NY fireman after the 9/11 attacks promising to find whoever did this to the nation, he was every American's president. His polls soared. He had a unique opportunity to unite America, to bring the U.S. together with allies round the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al-Qaida, to eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations threatened by radicalism. He did NONE of those things..He invaded Iraq!....excerpt from Richard Clarke's book..

Bush's approval rating was 93% at the time of the speech...I was in the 93%...Until March-03....

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Daddy one of the reasons,,,Everyone of his 'reasons' proved to non-existent.
If it was oil, why didn't we drain their oilfields?...


...how'd that work out...

So we should steal their oil?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So we should steal their oil?

No, we earned it...