So.....I haven't heard a peep from war fanatics about the revelation that Bush's allegation that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear arms was based on a forged document. What is everyone's take on that? Does this bother anyone other than me? Let's hear it.

Going into Iraq, IMO, was a necessary step in the continuing war on terror. Now, while the iraqi idiot and obi-wan the camel jockey aren't good buddies they did /do share common goals, among them being the destructiion of the US & friends. In the murky world of spy vs spy, you're typically not going to come up with evidence that is courtroom quality. If memory serves, there was more concern about the iraqi idiot having bio/chem weaponry than nukes. The evidence of labs capable of producing such weapons is easily transportable in delivery trucks, and could very well have been in any of the surrounding countries shortly after the US attacks began. While support has wavered, the removal of the iraqi idiot is a good thing, as will be seen as time passes. As was pointed out on a very recent news show, the US has only been in Iraq some 90 days. Seems that while pre-invasion patience was preached, those same preachers are now expecting & demanding immediate results.

well said es347fan, America needs some time to find out what was going on over there. Right now we aren't learning anything because we are to busy playing policeman(oops I ment police person). Alot of sh** disappeared into other country's that support hate for America, we can thank the French for that.They gave Sadam more then enough time to move sh** that would have convicted him. We will just have to wait for awhile and see what happens. As far as invading Iraq I still think we did the right thing.

The info was bad on that item - but it was hardly a case of purposely missledaing the american public & that particular item was hardly the reason to go to war.

It also does not mean that Sadaam was not trying to produce nuclear weapons.

I think its sad that we had to bend over backwards to get you jackass liberals off your self righteous asses and help someone out. You cant get past the fact someone might make a profit off of something. Grow up. You are more concerned with getting G.W. out off office than anything else, and every single little piss ant thing is under the microscope, none of it gets traction, even with the help of all the alphabet channels saying GW lied every second of the day. The American people are sick and tired of you twits trying to bring a good man down for your own selfish political gains, go to hell and suck on it.

Trav-

Are you talking to me? I really can't tell. I would assume since you hate me, but you're so off topic you may as well be talking to one of the voices in your head.


The Sane Posters-

I understand y'all are Bush supporters and all. But that's a pretty big mistake isn't it? To accuse a country of trying to acquire nuclear weapons and using that as one of the reasons to invade and attack that country, and base that accusation on what intelligence officials regard as an obvious forgery? Isn't that a pretty big mistake or flagrantly unethical manipulation of public opinion?

Seems to me you're looking for irrefutable evidence that the iraqi idiot was in fact seeking to purchase nuke accessories, and if not presented with such you're condemming the entire campaign. Have you found something that says he wasn't looking for these nuke related products?

No, I don't need to. The burden of proof lies on the accuser.....you know, innocent until proven guilty, the principle of justice followed by all civil countries I'm aware of, including ours.

So do I want solid evidence before we declare war, topple governments, kill thousands, and spend billions to such ends? You betcha, and you should too.

Originally posted by Leper
So do I want solid evidence before we declare war, topple governments, kill thousands, and spend billions to such ends? You betcha, and you should too. So, do you not believe the "solid evidence" we have that Saddam was a mass murderer? Is that not reason enough? Do you not think Saddam was capable of funding terrorism? Do you think his cruelty was only for his own people? Or does none of that make a differerence to you at all because of your simple hatred for our president?

Let me ask you a question. Was there any course of action in Iraq that the president could have taken that you would have agreed with? Keep in mind this soap opera had been going on for 12-13 years and Saddam had never even tried to avoid confrontation.

Um, we're talking about the nulear weapon issue. Are you now abandoning the weapons of mass destruction argument? I don't hear anything about that from you anymore? What happened, have you turned into a humanitarian in the past couple of months or do you just refuse to admit that we've made some big mistakes?

I'd also like to point out that all of the reasons you mentioned could just as easily apply to Liberia. Why don't you support sending an army over there too? Are you a selective humanitarian or do you just support everything Bush does, no matter how little sense it makes? At least in Liberia, the people are asking for our help. You can't even say that about Iraq.

Originally posted by Leper
Um, we're talking about the nulear weapon issue. Are you now abandoning the weapons of mass destruction argument? I don't hear anything about that from you anymore? What happened, have you turned into a humanitarian in the past couple of months or do you just refuse to admit that we've made some big mistakes?

I'd also like to point out that all of the reasons you mentioned could just as easily apply to Liberia. Why don't you support sending an army over there too? Are you a selective humanitarian or do you just support everything Bush does, no matter how little sense it makes? At least in Liberia, the people are asking for our help. You can't even say that about Iraq. Um, the weapons of mass destruction angle was never the "smoking gun" i needed for invasion. As i said above, Saddam has been playing a dangerous game with the international community for 13+ years. It finally caught up to him. We all know he had chemical weapons. Because he used them on his own people. So no, im not abondoning the arguement of wmd, it never was an issue for me. Just a bonus. And you never answered any of my questions.

The reason I didn't answer your questions is because they all are meaningless to me. But if you insist on sidetracking me w/ this gunk....

Course of action? That's easy. Nothing until you can prove Iraq is taking action against the U.S.

Is Sadaam a mass murderer? A very humanitarian question. That's cute you've turned humanitarian. Probably, but I don't care. There are plenty of nat ions full of such mass murderers. It's not possible for us nor our job to go after em.

Is Sadaam capable of terrorism? I think the answer would be "yes" for any subject due to how broad this question is. I don't know about you, but I believe we should act according to actions taken not actions people are "capable" of.

Cruelty restricted to his own people? As far as I know, yes. Not that I'm a humanitarian who cares what the answer to this question is.
Now you can answer some of my questions...

So what should we do about Liberia? They have a cruel mass-murdering dictator who has been asked to step down by the U.S. This also makes him a good candidate for condoning terrorism against the U.S. Shall we send troops there?

Are you a humanitarian? Should the U.S. government try to stop cruelty and mass murder whenever we can?

I'm sorry, I must be mistaken...I thought WMDs were your "smoking gun." So what exactly is your "smoking gun?"

One more, would you agree Bush's use of forged documents to accuse Iraq of making nukes is either grievously wrong or a big mistake?

Originally posted by Leper
The reason I didn't answer your questions is because they all are meaningless to me. But if you insist on sidetracking me w/ this gunk....

Course of action? That's easy. Nothing until you can prove Iraq is taking action against the U.S.

Is Sadaam a mass murderer? A very humanitarian question. That's cute you've turned humanitarian. Probably, but I don't care. There are plenty of nat ions full of such mass murderers. It's not possible for us nor our job to go after em.

Is Sadaam capable of terrorism? I think the answer would be "yes" for any subject due to how broad this question is. I don't know about you, but I believe we should act according to actions taken not actions people are "capable" of.

Cruelty restricted to his own people? As far as I know, yes. Not that I'm a humanitarian who cares what the answer to this question is.
Now you can answer some of my questions...

So what should we do about Liberia? They have a cruel mass-murdering dictator who has been asked to step down by the U.S. This also makes him a good candidate for condoning terrorism against the U.S. Shall we send troops there?

Are you a humanitarian? Should the U.S. government try to stop cruelty and mass murder whenever we can?

I'm sorry, I must be mistaken...I thought WMDs were your "smoking gun." So what exactly is your "smoking gun?"

One more, would you agree Bush's use of forged documents to accuse Iraq of making nukes is either grievously wrong or a big mistake? Well to be totally honest with you Leper, most everything you post is meaningless to me.
As far as me being a humanitarian. I guess when compared to your disgusting quantification of human value I am a humanitarian.
As i stated above, i needed no "smoking gun". Saddam has played too many game for too long to need a "smoking gun".
And yes, if Pres. Bush knew these documents were forged, he commited a crime against the american people. If, as he has stated is was a mistake, then fine. Fire Tenet if it is neccessary. After all, did he not admit the mistake was actually his?

Originally posted by Leper
Um, we're talking about the nulear weapon issue. Are you now abandoning the weapons of mass destruction argument? I don't hear anything about that from you anymore? What happened, have you turned into a humanitarian in the past couple of months or do you just refuse to admit that we've made some big mistakes?

Since when was the reason for the war nuclear weapons? Colin Powell in his speech to the UN didn't even mention it.

It was the right thing to do - period

Originally posted by HaVoK
Well to be totally honest with you Leper, most everything you post is meaningless to me.
As far as me being a humanitarian. I guess when compared to your disgusting quantification of human value I am a humanitarian.
As i stated above, i needed no "smoking gun". Saddam has played too many game for too long to need a "smoking gun".
And yes, if Pres. Bush knew these documents were forged, he commited a crime against the american people. If, as he has stated is was a mistake, then fine. Fire Tenet if it is neccessary. After all, did he not admit the mistake was actually his?

You don't need a smoking gun eh? So you're saying you don't need proof for reasons to invade foreign countries? I hope the rest of the world doesn't make such faith-based decisions.

"As far as me being a humanitarian. I guess when compared to your disgusting quantification of human value I am a humanitarian. "

I didn't ask for you to compare your values to me. I guess you're just ashamed to admit you're a humanitarian, period? Go ahead, it's not a sin to admit "I'm a humanitarian"....you can still call yourself conservative.

And for the third time, why shouldn't we invade Liberia too?

And I'll go along with your willingness to grant Bush leeway if he didn't know his information was obviously false. However, that provides an excellent example of why you should be very sure you have good evidence before making accusations. You and people like you allow for such practically baseless claims to be made, and then brush off these huge mistakes as mere accidents. It's not only a mistake, it's a careless mistake.

Originally posted by DrewM
Since when was the reason for the war nuclear weapons? Colin Powell in his speech to the UN didn't even mention it.

It was the right thing to do - period

The President used it in his State of the Union address! Who cares about Colin Powell?!

"It was the right thing to do," eh? So why is it the right thing? I don't hear the rationale...is it because you weren't being rational in the first place? All I heard was about the terrorist threat and WMDs from you guys before this war started. Why are you for it now?

I can imagine Osama's just happy as a lark right now. He has somehow managed to get the two countries he hates most to get mired in conflict.

I mentioned Colin Powell to highlight the fact that nuclear weapons was NEVER used as a rationalle or core talking point. If it were then Powell would have used it when he gave his speech at the UN.

I have respect that Bush came clean & said that point was questionable - he could have said nothing. It doesn't change anything & it's oh so predictable for the lilly boys to jump on that & make it out to mean the whole logic was flawed.

It was the right thing to do because a guy like Hussain is a threat to the US - this has been discussed a million times already. Iraq had non accounted for WMD & they had shown willingness to use them for mass slaughter - reason enough.

Do you know what turmoil just a small amount of anthrax could do in NYC? You weigh the risks & you take action - you don't cry about it after the fact - be that after action to eliminate the threat or after such a threat kills your kids - we already know which scenario you would prefer.

And don't say no threat existed - that's exactly what the people who walked into the elevators and stood chatting at the coffee machines in the WTC at 8am on the morning of 9/11 would have said - No risk here - doesn't seem possible.

Originally posted by Leper
No, I don't need to. The burden of proof lies on the accuser.....you know, innocent until proven guilty, the principle of justice followed by all civil countries I'm aware of, including ours.

So do I want solid evidence before we declare war, topple governments, kill thousands, and spend billions to such ends? You betcha, and you should too.

Hey genius, why dont you take off the hate blinders for a second and think about what you are saying. The UN resolution everyone signed onto, even Fance, said that Sadaam had to prove to US that he had no weapons, not us prove that he had them,and a failure to do so would mean he had them and be grounds for forceful removal, if Sadaam didnt have anything to hide why didnt he let us in unconditionally? He could of bitch slapped GW down and held onto power, but he didnt do it, ever stop to think of why? DO you think he really thought he could beat us? DO you think he was so stubborn that he would lose everything to prove a point? I dont think so, he had absolute power, adn would not willingly give it up for any reason. If he had no WMD he would have let us in there, and waved goodbye as he sent us out the door empty handed. You idiots think we made all this shit up just so we could play soldier in the sand and get oil. GW never lied about anything, all he said was the British told him Sadaam was trying to get Uranium from AFRICA, that was what he said. Stop grasping every little straw in an attempt to get one over on the Prez man, you look like an idiot liberal.

Originally posted by DrewM
I mentioned Colin Powell to highlight the fact that nuclear weapons was NEVER used as a rationalle or core talking point. If it were then Powell would have used it when he gave his speech at the UN.

I have respect that Bush came clean & said that point was questionable - he could have said nothing. It doesn't change anything & it's oh so predictable for the lilly boys to jump on that & make it out to mean the whole logic was flawed.

It was the right thing to do because a guy like Hussain is a threat to the US - this has been discussed a million times already. Iraq had non accounted for WMD & they had shown willingness to use them for mass slaughter - reason enough.

Do you know what turmoil just a small amount of anthrax could do in NYC? You weigh the risks & you take action - you don't cry about it after the fact - be that after action to eliminate the threat or after such a threat kills your kids - we already know which scenario you would prefer.

And don't say no threat existed - that's exactly what the people who walked into the elevators and stood chatting at the coffee machines in the WTC at 8am on the morning of 9/11 would have said - No risk here - doesn't seem possible.

You can act like its a minor issue all you want, but I know and you know you'd be damn upset if another country accused the U.S. of something so drastic based on one forged document. In fact, that would make me downright hostile toward that country unless there was some serious butt-kissing going on.

And not 9/11 again in reference to Iraq! The two are NOT related. Here's the sort of behavior you're advocating: Your disagreeable neighbor shoots your kid, so you shoot a different disagreeable neighbor. That's about how much sense you're making when you bring up 9/11 in relation to this topic.

And I know this has been discussed a million times already. The argument has been you need some concrete evidence that Iraq is a serious threat, otherwise you run the risk of making false accusations. Now we're actually seeing the results of baseless action. ZERO WMDs in sight after several months and the nuke claim is confirmed to be utterly false. Yet, you guys are convinced you did the right thing. I don't get it. It's like you're proving yourselves more wrong everyday but continue to entrench yourself and our nation on the wrong side in this idiotic issue. Is it sheer stubborness?

In the meantime, Al Queada, the REAL threat to the U.S., seems to be back to its old ways and we've got our troops stuck in what is more and more of a Vietnam-looking situation every day.

god your dense. Is it impossible for the US military to fight 2 enemys at once? Oh wait a minute, if my memory serves me correct, once upon a time we did fight 2 emenys at once, yes! it was Germany and Japan, 2 great military powers, and if I remember, we won. And there were deaths, 400,000 some odd thousand of them. Al Queada hanst struck the US since 9-11, they have done a few bombing here and there, we cant stop ever single lunatic muslim n the world. And I cant wait till the day when we do fing the WMD, every liberal in America will be eating crow and looking for their familiar rock to crawl back under.

Originally posted by Travh20
And I cant wait till the day when we do fing the WMD, every liberal in America will be eating crow and looking for their familiar rock to crawl back under. They wont go back under the rock. By then the slimy bastards will have another cause celebre to rally around. Just wait and see.

One document did not make the invasion of Iraq. The iraqi idiot brought the American & Brit might through his & his minions' behaviors over many years.
To date, it has not been several months, as you put it. Be patient.

Originally posted by HaVoK
They wont go back under the rock. By then the slimy bastards will have another cause celebre to rally around. Just wait and see.

Ah, agreement with Travh? I rest my case.

Leper

For Gods sake man - why do you keep on harping on about concrete evidence. He invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his OWN people, had no regard for life, desired WMD and was set against anybody getting the clean truth. It's an easy step to see WMD being handed over to terrorists. What kind of "concrete proof" were you looking for? 5000 dead Americans perhaps?

Your logic is the same logic that has resulted in the deaths of millions all through history.

Originally posted by Leper
Ah, b*tching in chorus w/ TravH? If there were evidence to prove you wrong, that would be it. Call it what you will. But im not the one crying over our presidents foriegn affair policies. You are. You are the one b*tching about us fighting this war with Iraq and not fighting the one in Liberia. No mention of North Korea? Why are you mute on that issue? I mean, why not bring everything to the fore and you can have yourself a liberal b*tch fest.

Originally posted by es347fan
One document did not make the invasion of Iraq. The iraqi idiot brought the American & Brit might through his & his minions' behaviors over many years.
To date, it has not been several months, as you put it. Be patient.

No, but it does burn our credability to the ground and shows that one reason we used for making Iraq out to be worth invading was completely bogus. Makes you wonder about the other reasons, doesn't it?

Oh yeah, what was the date we invaded Iraq?

Originally posted by DrewM
Leper

For Gods sake man - why do you keep on harping on about concrete evidence. He invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons on his OWN people, had no regard for life, desired WMD and was set against anybody getting the clean truth. It's an easy step to see WMD being handed over to terrorists. What kind of "concrete proof" were you looking for? 5000 dead Americans perhaps?

Your logic is the same logic that has resulted in the deaths of millions all through history.

Ah, another new reason for invading: extra punishment for the 1991 War. What other new reasons would you like to submit? You better bring up a few more, cause that one's pretty weak and your old reasons have lost their weight.

shit leper, why even have an army? if it were up to you we would jsut let every single dictator go wild until they decided, out of the kindness of their evil little hearts, to show us all their secrets and their plans and ambitions, then, after that, we could attack in good conscience. Grow up kid, this is the real world, not political science class down at the community college.

Originally posted by Leper
Ah, another new reason for invading: extra punishment for the 1991 War. What other new reasons would you like to submit? You better bring up a few more, cause that one's pretty weak and your old reasons have lost their weight.

We just have a fundamental difference of view which cannot be bridged. You want 100% cast iron proof - the type that only dead victims can provide & I am willing to look at the history & say - yes - this is the right cause of action today regardless of where the cards end up laying tommorrow. Your viewpoint will be truly efficient and wonderful once we can travel in time & have perfected crystal ball technology.

he only wants concrete proof when George W Bush is president, he probably didnt ask for much proof when Clinton bombed the crap out of Iraq, or Serbia, or invaded Haiti, I guess asking for proof wasnt in style back then.

Concrete proof is a dream. There are lots of things we take for granted without any concrete proof. Concrete proof is nothing but a whore to political affiliation.

Leper - I wonder, if your family was impacted by a terrorist act if your requirement for concrete proof would waver - or would you remain high on ideology?

The only path in any situation is to weigh the facts, look at the history, make a decision & you stay the course. Whatever you may think of Bush - he did these things with the protection of the American people as his goal & I respect that even if not every motivation can ever be 100% pure - remember we are talking about people...not the virgin mary.

BUt we do have concrete proof of atrocites Saddam committed. We are finding them almost daily. But things like this do not matter to people like you do they Leper?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92237,00.html

What's my take on this story? Irrelevant. The reason for going into Iraq was much more based on chemical/biological weapons than on nuclear. After thinking about this thread, I tried to recall when or if nuclear weapons were much, if any a concern. I did a search here on All Forums putting Iraq and nuclear into my search window. I found very few recent results. Interestingly enough, one of the threads had the exact same reaction that I had.

Here is the thread: http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1693&highlight=Iraq+nuclear

Here is the reaction: I never heard that we were looking for nucs, I heard we were looking for chemical and other weapons.

Essentially, I find this story (about forged documents on Iraq's nuclear capabilities) to strongly resemble more of the anti-war propaganda and general riff-raff that is created to try to create a diversion from what the war was really about. If you can't remember the main reasons for the war, I'm not going to refresh your memory. Look it up yourself. But it wasn't to try to take Iraq's nuclear weapons away.

Hey, I never had anything against the war on terrorism. I'm all for hunting down Al Queada. But the FACT is that Iraq has not been sponsering terrorist activity. If you want to blame a country for terrorism, you should go after Saudi Arabia. That's where the money's coming from. That's the country that is building hundreds of international Islamic fundamentalist schools that teach little children to hate the United States without knowing why.

Havoki, once again, why oh why don't you suppport sending troops to Liberia? Why aren't you upset about our lack of intervention in Rwanda? Don't feed me that crap about how we're there to do good deeds for suffering people. You think Iraq is the only place that is suffering? I'm bringing up this point for the fourth time now without you giving me a justification for this blatant hypocracy.

Originally posted by Karankawa
What's my take on this story? Irrelevant. The reason for going into Iraq was much more based on chemical/biological weapons than on nuclear. After thinking about this thread, I tried to recall when or if nuclear weapons were much, if any a concern. I did a search here on All Forums putting Iraq and nuclear into my search window. I found very few recent results. Interestingly enough, one of the threads had the exact same reaction that I had.

Here is the thread: http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1693&highlight=Iraq+nuclear

Here is the reaction:

Essentially, I find this story (about forged documents on Iraq's nuclear capabilities) to strongly resemble more of the anti-war propaganda and general riff-raff that is created to try to create a diversion from what the war was really about. If you can't remember the main reasons for the war, I'm not going to refresh your memory. Look it up yourself. But it wasn't to try to take Iraq's nuclear weapons away.

It was in the President's State of the Union address. Are you trying to refute that? Or are things that Bush says in his State of the Union address "irrelevant?"

Originally posted by Leper


Havoki, once again, why oh why don't you suppport sending troops to Liberia? Why aren't you upset about our lack of intervention in Rwanda? Don't feed me that crap about how we're there to do good deeds for suffering people. You think Iraq is the only place that is suffering? I'm bringing up this point for the fourth time now without you giving me a justification for this blatant hypocracy. If the president decides to send troops to Liberia then i will support it. Right now, i think we have our hands full with Iraq. It still isnt over yet. It makes sense to me to end one conflict before becoming embroiled in another. Are you capable of comprehending that? Or has your blatant hatred of our president and his policies blinded you to common sense? I never responded to the other posts because i felt only a simpleton could not see the point im making. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by DrewM
Concrete proof is a dream. There are lots of things we take for granted without any concrete proof. Concrete proof is nothing but a whore to political affiliation.

Leper - I wonder, if your family was impacted by a terrorist act if your requirement for concrete proof would waver - or would you remain high on ideology?

Yeah, and I wonder if you were ever falsely accused of something based on sketchy evidence you would change your ideology. You can argue with me all you like, but our justice system says innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is a justice system that has evolved over hundreds of years (descending from England) in order to insure just results are reached and innocent people aren't falsely accused. Go ahead, keep debating with that concept, but I'll go ahead and follow what I think and hundreds of brilliant people before me have thought is the right way to ensure justice is served.

Let me ask you this, do you think that when someone is accused of a crime, you standard for convicting that person should drop below "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" Or perhaps you think only Americans deserve the protection of such a standard?

Originally posted by HaVoK
If the president decides to send troops to Liberia then i will support it. Right now, i think we have our hands full with Iraq. It still isnt over yet. It makes sense to me to end one conflict before becoming embroiled in another. Are you capable of comprehending that? Or has your blatant hatred of our president and his policies blinded you to common sense? I never responded to the other posts because i felt only a simpleton could not see the point im making. :rolleyes:

I see the point you're making perfectly. So do you think we should have sent troops to Rwanda when over a MILLION people were slaughtered? Our troops weren't so committed then.

The problem here is you don't see the point *I'm* making. The point is that no one country, even one as powerful as the U.S. is now, has the ability to patrol the world trying to stop every atrocious government in existance. Even if you tried to do it one nation at a time, we'd kill ourselves in the process. Wars cost our nation wealth. Wars cost families their fathers. Wars cost hospitals their doctors. You know, we must have 100,000 families in our country going without a parent in the home right now because that parent is off to war? Not to mention, countless vital jobs are unfilled or filled w/ less competant individuals. Or need I bring up the hundreds of soldiers who are already dead or permanently injured, with no end to such deaths/injuries in sight? Have you forgotten words like "Vietnam" or "Lebanon"? Do you know you're supporting the same damn thing those conflicts supported?

Originally posted by Leper
Yeah, and I wonder if you were ever falsely accused of something based on sketchy evidence you would change your ideology. You can argue with me all you like, but our justice system says innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is a justice system that has evolved over hundreds of years (descending from England) in order to insure just results are reached and innocent people aren't falsely accused. Go ahead, keep debating with that concept, but I'll go ahead and follow what I think and hundreds of brilliant people before me have thought is the right way to ensure justice is served.

Let me ask you this, do you think that when someone is accused of a crime, you standard for convicting that person should drop below "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" Or perhaps you think only Americans deserve the protection of such a standard? If you dont mind, i would like to answer that. First of all, you are talking about our JUDICIARY system. You obviously have that confused for some reason with our MILITARY. And yes, i do believe that we should treat Americans different than other nationalities. Americans's should always be given the benefit of the doubt, whereas i believe we should always be wary of foreiners.

What "guilt" would you have wanted proven? Saddam was "guilty" of mass murder. He was "guilty" of not abiding by U.N. resoutions HE agreed to for the original war stoppage. You seem to think everything can and should be settled in a court of law. But in the real world, it doesnt always happen that way. You may realize that after you get out of school. Or not.

Originally posted by Leper
I see the point you're making perfectly. So do you think we should have sent troops to Rwanda when over a MILLION people were slaughtered? Our troops weren't so committed then.

The problem here is you don't see the point *I'm* making. The point is that no one country, even one as powerful as the U.S. is now, has the ability to patrol the world trying to stop every atrocious government in existance. Even if you tried to do it one nation at a time, we'd kill ourselves in the process. Wars cost our nation wealth. Wars cost families their fathers. Wars cost hospitals their doctors. You know, we must have 100,000 families in our country going without a parent in the home right now because that parent is off to war? Not to mention, countless vital jobs are unfilled or filled w/ less competant individuals. Or need I bring up the hundreds of soldiers who are already dead or permanently injured, with no end to such deaths/injuries in sight? Have you forgotten words like "Vietnam" or "Lebanon"? Do you know you're supporting the same damn thing those conflicts supported? Ok. I agree with most of what you are saying when you talk of depletion of work force, fathers not with their families.

But what would you have us do? Bury our head in the sand? Coddle tyrant's. Beg and plead with mass murderer's to abide by international treaties? Once again, you seem to think we live in an ideal world where if given a chance, people will somehow do the right thing. Or maybe you think that other countries actions dont affect ours. I dont know what you are thinking, i only know its all flawed logic. Your fear of another "Vietnam" or "Lebanon" would make you do nothing. That doesnt work either.

The loss of just one American soldier is a tragedy, yet sometimes it has to happen. Our young men and women realize that when they join. They dont want to die, and will do whatever it takes to not let that happen. But like it or not, their job is to defend this country until their death if neccessary.

And what is this anyway? All of a sudden you are a "humanitarian"? Since when do you give a sh*t about someone? You've shown no compassion for anyone in your earlier posts, why start now?

Leper, the way you formulate your poll bugs me. the four options are :

My opinion hasn't changed at all.

Well, my support is wavering but there are other good reasons for supporting the war.

I've changed my mind, this war is not a good idea after all.

What bad intelligence?


What am I supposed to vote if I opposed the war ?
#1 ?

Hey, astra. Good to see you posting again. I agree with you, that's a terrible set of options. Frankly, I included it as kindoff an after thought.

But to answer your question, you have to vote "I haven't changed my opinion at all." That's what I ended up selecting although I didn't like the options I provided myself either.

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been said.

Why are all you left wingers going nuts saying "we were mislead into a war!" over ONE piece of intelligence! One grain of salt out of a SEA of incriminating evidence against Saddam and you think we were mislead into the war. Give me a break. If that little tidbit had been left out of the speech, do you think support for the war would have been any less? Hardly. You leftists need to get a grip and realize you are not going to get Bush impeached.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
One grain of salt out of a SEA of incriminating evidence against Saddam and you think we were mislead into the war.

This "sea of evidence" seems to be evaporating so fast that it could very soon turn into a very small and stinky marsh of approximations and lies.

Originally posted by astrapol2
This "sea of evidence" seems to be evaporating so fast that it could very soon turn into a very small and stinky marsh of approximations and lies. I guess you can only hold your breath and pray.

Originally posted by Leper
But the FACT is that Iraq has not been sponsering terrorist activity.

Leper I'm not trying to get into this topic, like I have said we will have to wait and see what proof comes. BUT I have to say one thing about your statement above "BULLSH**" Sadam, him self made a statement of how he had helped Osamah money wise. So please don't say Iraq had nothing do to with American hate because they did.

Originally posted by mad dog
[BSadam, him self made a statement of how he had helped Osamah money wise. [/B]

Maybe you could give us more information about this breaking new. As a journalist I would be very interested in publishing it in my paper !

Do you have a reliable source ? Or did you just hear this in the President's State of the Union address ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
Maybe you could give us more information about this breaking new. As a journalist I would be very interested in publishing it in my paper !

Do you have a reliable source ? Or did you just hear this in the President's State of the Union address ?

Yes, I'm afraid I've somehow never heard this information either. I'd love to hear more about it, cause it's just the sort of evidence that could sway me.

I saw it awhile back on the news, fox I think, I will try to find out more if I can, like I said it was awhile back. Who knows maybe it is not true, we all know that sometimes the media can report false info. The one thing, that makes me believe it to be true is just look at how much Sadam hates this country, look at all the money they found stuck in walls etc.... He did have influence, and he sure as heck was pi**ed at us for desert storm. I find it very hard to think he had nothing to do with terrorism. Lets not forget that Osamah has been seen with him. Like I said I will try to find out where I have seen the story, maybe it was the NY times(just kidding)

what makes me think it is not true is that we know Saddam hated islamists (the baath party was non-religious) and Saudis. Plus if this had been true we would have heard it everytime Bush or Rumsfeld was talking about the supposed links between Iraq and Terrorism.
Are you sure what you heard was not about Iraq giving money to the families of suicide bombers in palestine ? This is the only proven link I know between Saddam and terrorism.

The previous government of Iraq gave money to the families of homicide bombers.This is clear evidence of their support of terrorism. Palestinian terrorists indiscriminately murder innocent citizens of an American ally. Pres. Bush has stated that those in support of terrorism are at odds with US policy. What other evidence would you require?

The title of this thread kills me.

Bad Intellegence = Bad War

Can you exagerrate what happened anymore? You're not crediting the CIA with all of the intelligence that they do uncover. Furthermore, officials have already apologized about the claims that Iraq was looking at buying uranium in Africa. But come on, don't mislead people! We did not go into Iraq because we thought they were buying uranium!!!!!

Originally posted by es347fan
The previous government of Iraq gave money to the families of homicide bombers.This is clear evidence of their support of terrorism. Palestinian terrorists indiscriminately murder innocent citizens of an American ally. Pres. Bush has stated that those in support of terrorism are at odds with US policy. What other evidence would you require?

There is a big difference between this and what Havok said about Saddam giving money to Ben Laden.
Most people in the USA believe that Iraq was closely linked to 9-11 and this has been one of the reasons why the support to war was so big. But this link does not exist.
The support to Palestinian terrorist gives a reason for Israel to make war to Iraq, but I guess for many American it would not have been a reason strong enough.

Oh...my....god.... Bill Clinton thinks this is a dead issue too!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

Originally posted by Karankawa
The title of this thread kills me.

Bad Intellegence = Bad War

Can you exagerrate what happened anymore? You're not crediting the CIA with all of the intelligence that they do uncover. Furthermore, officials have already apologized about the claims that Iraq was looking at buying uranium in Africa. But come on, don't mislead people! We did not go into Iraq because we thought they were buying uranium!!!!!

Notice the question mark.

Originally posted by es347fan
The previous government of Iraq gave money to the families of homicide bombers.This is clear evidence of their support of terrorism. Palestinian terrorists indiscriminately murder innocent citizens of an American ally. Pres. Bush has stated that those in support of terrorism are at odds with US policy. What other evidence would you require?

*sigh* We're talking about terrorism vs. the U.S. If you want to include terrorism against U.S. allies, then you need to include Palestinean terrorists on your list of people the U.S. should wipe off the face of the planet....something the U.S. has made an effort to stay directly out of.
And if you want to go there, you need to say who we should consider "allies." For instance, is India an ally and do we need to help them fight Pakestani terrorism?

Originally posted by astrapol2
There is a big difference between this and what Havok said about Saddam giving money to Ben Laden.
Most people in the USA believe that Iraq was closely linked to 9-11 and this has been one of the reasons why the support to war was so big. But this link does not exist.
The support to Palestinian terrorist gives a reason for Israel to make war to Iraq, but I guess for many American it would not have been a reason strong enough. I think you have me confused with another member. I never said Saddam gave money directly to Bin Laden.

Originally posted by astrapol2
what makes me think it is not true is that we know Saddam hated islamists (the baath party was non-religious) and Saudis. Plus if this had been true we would have heard it everytime Bush or Rumsfeld was talking about the supposed links between Iraq and Terrorism.
Are you sure what you heard was not about Iraq giving money to the families of suicide bombers in palestine ? This is the only proven link I know between Saddam and terrorism.

My question is who did Sadam hate(and fear) more the U.S., or the Islamists, my quess would be the U.S. Fear can drive people to act out. Whether Sadam gave the money to Osamah or to those brain washed pilots doesn't matter. The fact remains he helped the terrorist. Giving to the organization is just the same as giving to the leader.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Oh...my....god.... Bill Clinton thinks this is a dead issue too!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

It must be part of the Democratic strategy for 2004 - make the President look sleazy. And what better way to make someone look sleazy than to gain the approval of Clinton?:D

Clinton is just a cartoon character, who cares what he or she thinks.