First No WMD, and Now No Al Qaeda Contact...

[Mr Nice]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Kinda puts a damper on Bush's "Fear and Smear" tour.

I think it's funny.

Bush never said that Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda. In fact, he even said that there was no link... several times.

You get your brain washed often?

[dmf]

Originally posted by Mr Nice
I think it's funny.

Bush never said that Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda. In fact, he even said that there was no link... several times.

You get your brain washed often?

Gee, guess I'm not the only one that heard that part, thank you Mr Nice for makeing that clear again

BTW if you think Saddan had no WMD, then sit back and wait till the Insurgents ( Iraq's army in clvilian clother) uses some of them on sombody again.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by MIShill
I want to thank all of you who seem to feel that brutal dictatorships and mercenary-run governments like the Taliban are "ok" as long as they have no impact on you personally. You allow me to at least FEEL I have the moral high ground when I see Saddam in jail and the Taliban decimated. Perhaps North Korea, Darfur and Myanmar and all the other benighted places in the world also "deserve" what they have as well, but I don't agree. I consider the removal of Saddam justified based on his history of brutality. WMD was just a convenient excuse.

First .... nice avatar!

Second .... it's really only moral high ground if it's universally applied. There were plenty of brutal dictators around at the time this administration decided there was definite proof of WMDs and terrorist ties and that diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq was so neccessary we had to do so with inadequate preparation and resources and no realistic plan for occupation. Cherry-picking Saddam to make a point about looking tough (whether the excuse to invade was WMDs, terrorist ties or feeling that out of all the brutal dictators of the world, invading this one was going to be easiest since he was effectively neutered a decade ago - or maybe because there was a Bush family grudge or unfinished business in the mind of one of Texas' worst businessmen) didn't impress me from the get-go.

It just sounds like administrative back pedaling to me. The "new facism" and going blind into Baghdad.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Viking
Your hindsight was Europe’s (minus Bush’s lapdog) foresight. Nice of you to finally see reality for what it is.

Same evidence everyone else had, but Europe was not so easy to con into an unjust war.

You mean the group who was making a killing by circumventing the sanctions with their own greedy side deals and did not want to ruin the good thing they had going with Saddam?

Doesn’t all this mean that Saddam actually DID stick to the deal since he didn’t have any WMD and no active programs to develop WMD and no connections to terrorism? Why yes it does! Again with your hindsight Mr. Eagler, you should be able to come to the same conclusion that Hans Blix foresight gave him. Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions.

Saddam was busy preventing proper inspections every which way he could, to the point the UN would pull their frustrated inspectors out of Iraq, if they were not told to go already..
Have you forgotten those two "basic" facts already?

I find people who still argue that the war was justified somewhat like people who argue the Holocaust never happened. Slightly amusing, but mostly just tragic.

I find people who, when shown the evidence gathered & studied for over a decade prior to the invasion, voted then for the war who now state we should turn tail and leave Iraq to ferment into the largest cesspool of terrorist activity in the middle east - pathetic.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by dmf
BTW if you think Saddan had no WMD, then sit back and wait till the Insurgents ( Iraq's army in clvilian clother) uses some of them on sombody again.

I'm still waiting for them to use them on somebody the first time. With all this "you guys are missing the obvious" goin' on ... maybe I am.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Mr Nice
I think it's funny.

Bush never said that Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda. In fact, he even said that there was no link... several times.

You get your brain washed often?

Hello Nuke.

[T0J0]

A partisan Senate fact finding group airbrushes history and the Oclub democratic undergrounders go wild...Shocker.....

[Mr Nice]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Hello Nuke.

Hi!

[Arlo]

Originally posted by T0J0
A partisan Senate fact finding group airbrushes history and the Oclub democratic undergrounders go wild...Shocker.....

Yeah ... "artistic license" versus "airbrushing history." And I'd appreciate you putting your own bra and panties back on. The shock value seems fairly universal but no more tasteful.

[T0J0]

Originally posted by Arlo
Yeah ... "artistic license" versus "airbrushing history." And I'd appreciate you putting your own bra and panties back on. The shock value seems fairly universal but no more tasteful.

Easy there princess! you got a run in your stocking.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Eagler
You mean the group who was making a killing by circumventing the sanctions with their own greedy side deals and did not want to ruin the good thing they had going with Saddam?

Irrelevant. More than 50% of the Oil For Food scandal were on US companies hands.

Originally posted by Eagler
Saddam was busy preventing proper inspections every which way he could, to the point the UN would pull their frustrated inspectors out of Iraq, if they were not told to go already..
Have you forgotten those two "basic" facts already?

I’m afraid I haven’t forgotten the facts. You however seem to invent your “facts”.

The UN inspectors were there until they were told to leave by the US government.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm


So in fact it was the US who ended the UN inspections before they could be completed. Wonder why? I don’t. Hard to legitimize the war if the inspections came up empty.

Originally posted by Eagler
I find people who, when shown the evidence gathered & studied for over a decade prior to the invasion, voted then for the war who now state we should turn tail and leave Iraq to ferment into the largest cesspool of terrorist activity in the middle east - pathetic.

Sorry, I wouldn’t know any. My country and people were quite clear in our opposition to the war.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by T0J0
Easy there princess! you got a run in your stocking.

Leave my gear alone and check yer own, sugarplum.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Viking
Irrelevant. More than 50% of the Oil For Food scandal were on US companies hands.

bs

I’m afraid I haven’t forgotten the facts. You however seem to invent your “facts”.

The UN inspectors were there until they were told to leave by the US government.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

So in fact it was the US who ended the UN inspections before they could be completed. Wonder why? I don’t. Hard to legitimize the war if the inspections came up empty.

that was right before the war started - of course they were told to get out before the bombing started, I am talking about the entire timeline the inspections were suppose to be going on from the beginning of the sanctions.

[MIShill]

Fortunately Iraq's mass graves are "no big deal". The dead, tortured and raped in Kuwait were "no big deal". So are the millions starved to death in North Korea and the continuing genocide in Darfur. Pol Pot and Idi Amin must have been "ok" too since they did not represent  any WMD threat. Again, any excuse to take him down was ok. What we REALLY needed was a few more years of UN resolutions until he chose to rearm, right?
-MI-

[Debonair]

I think some people are begining to look back fondly on the Saddam years in Iraq because they're worried that the inevitable result of the US leaving Iraq will be another authoritarian theocracy AKA Iran Jr.  
Same reason a lot look back fondly at the Shah years in Iran.  
They should look back further to the Timur-e Lang years