Reasons For Iraq War

The first reason was because Saddam was linked to 9/11
That failed

Second was because he was a threat to us
That failed (no wmd)

Now it was to stop him from making weapons, in the future
Not proven, and unrealistic

Now it’s to save the civilians
Well, the civilians want us out. We are torturing them, and we bombed their homes and hospitals.

Which is it BUSH? Damn flip flopper...

“I do not believe in using our army for nation building”

Then Nation Builds in Iraq…

saddam is o threat to us, thats for certain now, and he will never make another weapon. we have liberated the country. its not our mens fault if the insurgents hide in mosques and in crowd sof innconets. I dont see why you cant see that you emotions are being layed by the terrorists. tehy know you blow smoke when you hear about a civilian casualty, so they make sure that there are max civilian casualties. why hide a heavy weapon in an empty building whn you can hide it in a school or hospital? if its gets blown up it will be a political gain and not jsut another lost heavy weapon. we are obligated to destroy heavy weapons that can be used agaisnt our troops and materials. your hatred for the president makes you blind. your conspiracy theorys only point one way. why is it so hard to imagine an al qeada saddam alliance? why is it so easy to believe a wild theory about your own president?

Originally posted by Travh20
saddam is o threat to us, thats for certain now, and he will never make another weapon. we have liberated the country. its not our mens fault if the insurgents hide in mosques and in crowd sof innconets. I dont see why you cant see that you emotions are being layed by the terrorists. tehy know you blow smoke when you hear about a civilian casualty, so they make sure that there are max civilian casualties. why hide a heavy weapon in an empty building whn you can hide it in a school or hospital? if its gets blown up it will be a political gain and not jsut another lost heavy weapon. we are obligated to destroy heavy weapons that can be used agaisnt our troops and materials. your hatred for the president makes you blind. your conspiracy theorys only point one way. why is it so hard to imagine an al qeada saddam alliance? why is it so easy to believe a wild theory about your own president?

There is no proof; you are going on assumption that they are linked together. The fact that the UN found no weapons, and we have found none, makes it all the more clear that he was no threat.

Originally posted by Travh20
why is it so hard to imagine an al qeada saddam alliance?

It's not hard to IMAGINE, it's just hard to prove.

hindsight is 20/20 liberal man. everyone, including the UN and Joh Kerry believed he had WMD and knew he had used them on more than one occasion. Now if you say that bush misled the entire world then that would mean he was one smart MOFO, and all I ahve heard from you is that he cant string 2 sentances together. so which is it?

Originally posted by Travh20
hindsight is 20/20 liberal man. everyone, including the UN and Joh Kerry believed he had WMD and knew he had used them on more than one occasion. Now if you say that bush misled the entire world then that would mean he was one smart MOFO, and all I ahve heard from you is that he cant string 2 sentances together. so which is it?

After the UN found nothing, I knew Saddam had nothing. So, yes, I believe he lied.

who lied? saddam or bush? if bush is so stupid how did he fool the entire world? why were the democrats saying that saddam was a threat and needed to be taken care of in defense of clintons attack on iraq? or do you believe that that strike destroyed the last of the WMD? LMAO

Originally posted by Travh20
who lied? saddam or bush? if bush is so stupid how did he fool the entire world? why were the democrats saying that saddam was a threat and needed to be taken care of in defense of clintons attack on iraq? or do you believe that that strike destroyed the last of the WMD? LMAO

You think you’re funny, but you aren’t. You just don’t pay attention.

The world was against the war, so that is why we left the UN. So he didn't fool the world.

Clinton didn’t have the UN Weapons Inspectors evidence to prove Iraq didn’t have any weapons. Also Saddam wanted to debate Bush, since Bush didn’t believe the UN (for some reason). Bush declined, even though Saddam was willing to directly prove that he did disarm.

So Clinton didn't have the facts, of Iraq not having WMD's, so that is why he thought Saddam did. Unlike Bush, he had the proof that was infront of his face.

thats the third time you have mentioned that saddam wanted to debate bush. do you know how desperate that sounds, using the fact that bush refused to debate saddam as part of your argument? talk about pathetic.

Originally posted by Travh20
thats the third time you have mentioned that saddam wanted to debate bush. do you know how desperate that sounds, using the fact that bush refused to debate saddam as part of your argument? talk about pathetic.

Talk about how you can't refute it…

Regardless, the UN found no weapons. Bush had no justification…

Where as Clinton didn’t have that evidence to prove Saddam had no WMD’s.

Liberal,

Can you please explain to this board how Bush "lied"? Please go into elaborate detail how he was able to get the CIA, FBI, MI6, the Mossad, the Iraqi National Congress and various other intelligence agencies in on it without the rest of the world finding out. Also please let me know what the Senate and House intelligence comittees do. They get the same information that POTUS does and came to the same conclusion...so much so that they voted and authorized the use of force. Do you mean to tell me that Bush was so smart he was able to dupe the entire Congressional branch of our government?

In order for Bush to lie he would have had to fabricate the intelligence himself, or be the ringleader of this vast conspiracy to fabricate evidence to support his claims. But this evidence was known prior to his administration. So he must have been working on this for a long time. Wait his father was the head of the CIA once. Maybe this is a Bush family conspiracy with the house of Saud that dates all the way back to when Reagn first gave Saddam the chemicals and biological agents he weaponized in support of his war with Iran. It was all a vast plot. Our intentions were not against Iran for taking over our embassy in the 70s and holding hostages, we wanted to someday nail Iraq and needed justification to do so. So we cooked this up along long time ago just to overthrow Saddam...for OIL.

:rolleyes: I hope my sarcasm was laid on thick.

How are those lies? Looks like left wing propaganda to me. Either that are a left wing fishing trip.

Meh…I’m not even going to find the links for you. I’m not in a mood to search. I'll get them for you sometime.

Regardless, Iraq was no threat. I’ve proven it to you, for a while now. You still don’t believe me…and that’s sad. It’s funny how Bush’s story keeps changing, as each reason fails.

Originally posted by The Republican
Liberal,

In order for Bush to lie he would have had to fabricate the intelligence himself, or be the ringleader of this vast conspiracy to fabricate evidence to support his claims. But this evidence was known prior to his administration. So he must have been working on this for a long time. Wait his father was the head of the CIA once. Maybe this is a Bush family conspiracy with the house of Saud that dates all the way back to when Reagn first gave Saddam the chemicals and biological agents he weaponized in support of his war with Iran. It was all a vast plot. Our intentions were not against Iran for taking over our embassy in the 70s and holding hostages, we wanted to someday nail Iraq and needed justification to do so. So we cooked this up along long time ago just to overthrow Saddam...for OIL.

:rolleyes: I hope my sarcasm was laid on thick.

EXACTLY! Except it isn’t for OIL, but the missing WMD’s that Bush cooked up. Saddam has had it out for the Bush family since the 90’s. So this fell right into Bush’s hands, and launched a war on Iraq. ;)

Liberal, I agree with everything that you are saying, and you don't need to supply a link. The link is commonsense.

Travh, Dumbya did not fool the entire world. He didn't fool me but there was nothing I could do about it. There were millions like me that he didn't fool. What could we have done? :confused:

you liberals are using hindsight as your main argument. "saddam is or never was a threat." how could you have known this? half assed UN inspectors who didnt want to find anything are not reliable. the "inspections" were a joke. calling ahead before a "suprise" inspection? come on! Watching those inspectors work was like wathing the keystone cops. Car wrecks, getting lost, taking days off, stalling. Saddam was jerking these guys around, and since they had absolutly no clout their hands were tied. that may be good enough for those who wanted peace at all costs, but not enough to sastify serious men with serious duties.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Regardless, Iraq was no threat. I’ve proven it to you, for a while now. You still don’t believe me…and that’s sad. It’s funny how Bush’s story keeps changing, as each reason fails.

Liberal you have not proven anything. You are blinded by your own hatred...that is what is sad. When asked to back your claims up you cannot. Bush's story has not changed at all...go back and look what he said starting in the State of The Union in 2002...the story has been the same since day one. Your arguments would be so much more effective you you could take the information for what it is and not spin it to your point of view. That gives people like me too many ways to discredit and prove you wrong. You are so hell bent in believing that Bush lied you will go to any length to support your claims. Did you ever think for a second that maybe after 14 years of lying to the UN Saddam was lying once more when the UN went back to Iraq in the fall/winter of 2002? Your sole reason that Bush lied is that the UN could not find anything but prohibited missles. In your eyes the fact Saddam could not prove he destroyed his weapons and wanted to debate Bush was all the proof you needed to claim Bush lied. But what if Saddam was lying...again? What if the weapons are well hidden in Iraq and he deceived the UN and the world community once again? You cannot prove that to not be the case...so your argument may not be 100% the truth like you say it is. I only wish you could look at reason and call things for what they are...not what you want them to be.

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
Liberal, I agree with everything that you are saying, and you don't need to supply a link. The link is commonsense.

Travh, Dumbya did not fool the entire world. He didn't fool me but there was nothing I could do about it. There were millions like me that he didn't fool. What could we have done? :confused:

Common sense tells any sane, rational, and logical human being that Saddam had WMD and was lying once again to the UN and the world. Common sense tells any sane, rational, and logical human being that maybe Saddam was the one lying and that being so hell bent to try and proove Bush lied is foolish and dumb.

Glad to see our far left was fooled yet again by Saddam and have become his patsy.

Since you say common sense tells any sane, rational, and logical human being that Saddam had WMD, then maybe you can go over to Iraq and find them for Dumbya. He's the one that said Saddam had WMD when he invaded. We don't have to be so hell-bent on proving that Bush lied because he did a hell-of-a-good job of doing it himself.

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
Since you say common sense tells any sane, rational, and logical human being that Saddam had WMD, then maybe you can go over to Iraq and find them for Dumbya. He's the one that said Saddam had WMD when he invaded. We don't have to be so hell-bent on proving that Bush lied because he did a hell-of-a-good job of doing it himself.

Once again a liberul has failed to see the bigger picture. Has it ever occured to you people that maybe it is Saddam that lied and has the WMD well hidden in Iraq? Can you possibly think outside your small box? Is that too hard to do at all?

You have no more proof that Saddam disarmed than I do that he did not. These weapons did not magically disappear into thin air. The difference between you and I is that you are so quick to brand someone a liar without having certain proof that he is.

Republican, I really weren't so quick to brand Bush a liar. It really took me almost a year to know for sure. When he first invaded, I was really thinking that there might be weapons in Iraq. The very first lie he told, he said that Saddam was involved with 9/11. He later said himself on TV, that Saddam wasn't involved, but that he had WMD. How much more damage does Bush have to do before you can see the liar for what he really is? Stand back, you're too close to the mirror to see what's going on.

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
Republican, I really weren't so quick to brand Bush a liar. It really took me almost a year to know for sure. When he first invaded, I was really thinking that there might be weapons in Iraq. The very first lie he told, he said that Saddam was involved with 9/11. He later said himself on TV, that Saddam wasn't involved, but that he had WMD. How much more damage does Bush have to do before you can see the liar for what he really is? Stand back, you're too close to the mirror to see what's going on.

Can you provide links to Bush claiming Saddam was involved with 9/11? Bush said Saddam supported terrorists, which he did, and that he might have had links to Al Qaeda, which he might have some documents support this, but I cannot remember him claiming Iraq was part of 9/11. We also knew Saddam had WMD and noone could prove where they went. Why should we not believe anything other than he still has them? Bush has done no damage whatsoever to be called a liar and that is only a figment of the libruls imagination.

Originally posted by The Republican
Liberal you have not proven anything. You are blinded by your own hatred...that is what is sad. When asked to back your claims up you cannot. Bush's story has not changed at all...go back and look what he said starting in the State of The Union in 2002...the story has been the same since day one. Your arguments would be so much more effective you you could take the information for what it is and not spin it to your point of view. That gives people like me too many ways to discredit and prove you wrong. You are so hell bent in believing that Bush lied you will go to any length to support your claims. Did you ever think for a second that maybe after 14 years of lying to the UN Saddam was lying once more when the UN went back to Iraq in the fall/winter of 2002? Your sole reason that Bush lied is that the UN could not find anything but prohibited missles. In your eyes the fact Saddam could not prove he destroyed his weapons and wanted to debate Bush was all the proof you needed to claim Bush lied. But what if Saddam was lying...again? What if the weapons are well hidden in Iraq and he deceived the UN and the world community once again? You cannot prove that to not be the case...so your argument may not be 100% the truth like you say it is. I only wish you could look at reason and call things for what they are...not what you want them to be.

What if? What if? What if? What if? Common trend I see.

The sad thing is, you don’t go to war on a “what if”. The administration went to war on a “what if” pretense, which is wrong. No administration has ever gone to war on a “chance” or a “what if” like you are saying. Yes, Saddam could have had the weapons (WE GAVE HIM). Yes, the UN could have missed a spot. Yes our satellites could have not picked any suspicious activities. Yes, Saddam could have lied. Yes the debate, where he was going to provide proof, could have been lies. But these are all “could” ideas, which are just not flying.

The UN found nothing, but they could have missed a sport. Well, we have been in Iraq and it seems they haven’t.

Wow, you are going to go to war on a “what if” idea? Now that’s sad.

Originally posted by The Republican
We also knew Saddam had WMD and noone could prove where they went. Why should we not believe anything other than he still has them? Bush has done no damage whatsoever to be called a liar and that is only a figment of the libruls imagination.

Yes, Saddam “did” have weapons. The weapons we gave him yes. Then we told him to disarm. He said he did, and we thought he was “lying”. So we sent the UN inspectors in Iraq to search. They found nothing. Bush then goes to war on the “what if” chance they have the weapons. We have been in Iraq for a year now, and found nothing. How many times do I have to repeat myself ?

For the exact same reason that you are claiming that I have a "what if" Saddam was lying you are in the exact same boat with a "what if" Saddam was not lying.

You seem to want to take the word of a saddistic mad man that has a history of lying and deceiving the UN. That is fine you are entitled to your own opinions. I on the other hand preffer to go with the knowledge and intelligence we had and believe President Bush.

So basically it boils down to who has more credebility, Saddam or Bush. I know which one I choose to side with.

Originally posted by The Republican
For the exact same reason that you are claiming that I have a "what if" Saddam was lying you are in the exact same boat with a "what if" Saddam was not lying.

You seem to want to take the word of a saddistic mad man that has a history of lying and deceiving the UN. That is fine you are entitled to your own opinions. I on the other hand preffer to go with the knowledge and intelligence we had and believe President Bush.

So basically it boils down to who has more credebility, Saddam or Bush. I know which one I choose to side with.

Saddam wasn’t lying, because the UN was in Iraq and found no evidence of Iraq possessing Weapons, after we told him to disarm. Bush didn’t believe Saddam, so Saddam wanted to DEBATE BUSH, TO PROVE TO HIM, AGAIN, that he did disarm. Yes he could have lied, but the UN had actual facts proving he did disarm. So Bush had no credibility to say Saddam possessed weapons, when the UN had actual reports saying Iraq had no weapons.

Many countries deceive the UN, Israel? They have invaded the West Bank, and that is against their agreement, and resolution with the UN. We don’t attack them? We tell North Korea to disarm and they don’t. In Saudi Arabia they do many illegal activities and we don’t go after them. Or the African countries who stone their women to death. It just all boils down to, we had no evidence and we went to war on a “what if”. While other countries deal with issues just like Iraq, and we seem to leave them in the dust.

Yes he was a bad man, but so our many other dictators around he world. It is not the United States job to go around and rid the world of them and spread the American way of life, just like the Europeans did to Africa.

Saddam has no credibility, which is why we sent the UN in Iraq to see if he was lying. He wasn’t lying, and that is how we proved he wasn’t lying. Got it?

Liberal I think you have got to be one of the most thick headed and stubborn people I know. Why is it that you cannot accept the fact you do not know for certain Saddam truly gave up his WMD?:hitout: :hitout: :hitout:

If the police give me a gun and then want me to disarm and I tell them I did, then I hide the gun so well that when they come to my house looking for my gun who has lied? The police for claiming I had a gun but could not proove it or me for claiming to disarm and not being able to proove it? Then because I want to debate the police chief to proove I am innocent and he declines that is proof that Igot rid of the gun?

Your logic is flawed. What the UN prooved when they went back to Iraq is that the could not offer definitive proof Saddam got rid of his weapons nor find where they went. They did however find missles that were in material breach of 1441, missles Saddam claimed he did not have.

Again this all falls down to who you want to believe Saddam or Bush. You choose Saddam, I choose Bush.

Originally posted by The Republican
Liberal I think you have got to be one of the most thick headed and stubborn people I know. Why is it that you cannot accept the fact you do not know for certain Saddam truly gave up his WMD?:hitout: :hitout: :hitout:

If the police give me a gun and then want me to disarm and I tell them I did, then I hide the gun so well that when they come to my house looking for my gun who has lied? The police for claiming I had a gun but could not proove it or me for claiming to disarm and not being able to proove it? Then because I want to debate the police chief to proove I am innocent and he declines that is proof that Igot rid of the gun?

Your logic is flawed. What the UN prooved when they went back to Iraq is that the could not offer definitive proof Saddam got rid of his weapons nor find where they went. They did however find missles that were in material breach of 1441, missles Saddam claimed he did not have.

Again this all falls down to who you want to believe Saddam or Bush. You choose Saddam, I choose Bush.

We do know, because the UN found nothing, in Iraq. We searched Iraq high and low and found nothing!

Then Saddam wanted to prove it and he wasn’t allowed to.

All UN reports showed Iraq had nothing.

You do not go to war on assumption, but fact. Who goes to war on assumptions? Only a fucking idiot would (Bush). The UN showed fact that Saddam had no weapons. Then we can’t find any in Iraq, and that just proved the UN was right on the money.

Even Colin Powell said that Iraq most likely didn’t have the weapons Bush said they did.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
We do know, because the UN found nothing, in Iraq. NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING. They searched IRAQ HIGH AND LOW, AND FOUND NOTHING!

Then SADDAM WANTED TO PROVE, IT AND HE WASN’T ALLOWD.

ALL UN REPORTS SHOWED IRAQ HAD NOTHING. YOU DO NOT GO TO WAR ON ASSUMPTION, BUT FACT! WHO GOES TO WAR ON ASSUMPTION? ONLY A FUCKING IDIOT WOULD. The UN showed FACT that Saddam had no weapons.

You are so arrogant.

If I am arrogant why is it that I have already said that I could be wrong and Saddam could have disarmed? Yet it is your arrogance that is holding onto the fact THERE IS NO PROOF he did other than the absense of weapons.

I wonder what you will say if we happen upon a pile of sand that has WMD buried underneath it? Will you appologize for calling Bush a liar? Will you admit you jumped to the wrong conclusion on shoddy evidence?

Originally posted by The Republican
If I am arrogant why is it that I have already said that I could be wrong and Saddam could have disarmed? Yet it is your arrogance that is holding onto the fact THERE IS NO PROOF he did other than the absense of weapons.

I wonder what you will say if we happen upon a pile of sand that has WMD buried underneath it? Will you appologize for calling Bush a liar? Will you admit you jumped to the wrong conclusion on shoddy evidence?

Only an idiot would go to war on assumption. No major war has been fought on assumption but only FACT. The proof is the fact that the UN found no weapons. They were sent to find proof, and that is what they did. Pay attention, wow. Honestly.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Only an idiot would go to war on assumption. No major war has been fought on assumption but only FACT. The proof is the fact hat the UN found no weapons. They were sent to find proof, and that is what they did. Pay attention, wow. Honestly.

So if we find WMD in Iraq will you admit you did not pay attantion? Honestly?

Originally posted by The Republican
So if we find WMD in Iraq will you admit you did not pay attantion? Honestly?

What I will admit is, the UN failed me, and had bad intelligence, just like you Republicans do to defend your President.

after 9-11 we no longer had the luxury of waiting to get hit and then retaliating, that was the whole point. of course we could have trusted saddams word and half assed UN inspections, and if we got hit with a WMD and found out afterwards it came from iraq we could have attacked, but the whole lesson of 9-11 was that we cant just react to threats, we have to stop them. saddams regime as a hostile regime, and known user of chemical weapons. if ever there was a candidate for attack it was him.

Originally posted by Travh20
after 9-11 we no longer had the luxury of waiting to get hit and then retaliating, that was the whole point. of course we could have trusted saddams word and half assed UN inspections, and if we got hit with a WMD and found out afterwards it came from iraq we could have attacked, but the whole lesson of 9-11 was that we cant just react to threats, we have to stop them. saddams regime as a hostile regime, and known user of chemical weapons. if ever there was a candidate for attack it was him.

Okay…but again, you have no proof of Saddam being linked to 9/11. So we aren’t stopping terrorist attacks, by attacking him. So another 9/11 wouldn’t have happened, if we had not attacked him.

There are a lot of other dictatorships and evil men with weapons out in the world. Why we pick Iraq I’ll never know.

The only reason you say the UN inspectors were “half assed” is because it proved that Bush’s credibility is out. They found no WMD’s, and no matter how you look at it, the UN did it’s job and Bush didn’t take the facts and went on assumption.

Yes we can’t wait for attacks, that is why we went into Afghanistan, and attacked organizations we thought were against us. Saddam, is not necessarily one of them. But has now beein the focus of all of our energy.

A lot of regimes are hostile, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, African countries and our own death penalty. We don’t get the right to pick whoever we want, and bomb the hell out of them. At least Iraq had the UN inspect them, while in North Korea and other countries we didn’t even have that. SO I could understand other countries, hardly.

The only reason Bush picked Iraq was because Saddam has had it out for the Bush family since the 90’s. Since he has, he went into Iraq, disregarding the UN.

Even Colin Powell said Iraq didn’t have weapons.

Originally posted by Travh20
after 9-11 we no longer had the luxury of waiting to get hit and then retaliating, that was the whole point. of course we could have trusted saddams word and half assed UN inspections, and if we got hit with a WMD and found out afterwards it came from iraq we could have attacked, but the whole lesson of 9-11 was that we cant just react to threats, we have to stop them. saddams regime as a hostile regime, and known user of chemical weapons. if ever there was a candidate for attack it was him.

Trav you hit the nail right on the head.

I would like to add though that had we not gone into Iraq and had one of Saddam's WMD been used in a terrorist attack against us there would be a large faction of those that oppose the Iraq War now complaining that Bush did nothing.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Yes, Saddam could have had the weapons (WE GAVE HIM).

You keep saying that. What's the relevance? If the U.S. makes a mistake (although arguably it was reasonable at the time) are we not allowed to fix it? Should France and England have let Hitler occupy their countries because Chamberlain stupidly negotiated a peace with him? Does every foreign policy decision lock us into a political stance for all time?

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Bush didn’t believe Saddam, so Saddam wanted to DEBATE BUSH, TO PROVE TO HIM, AGAIN, that he did disarm.

Debates prove nothing other than who is the better debater. I bet if you'd let him Saddam would've been willing to debate whether he ever tortured people too. Would that have proved that it didn't happen?

Originally posted by The Republican
Trav you hit the nail right on the head.

I would like to add though that had we not gone into Iraq and had one of Saddam's WMD been used in a terrorist attack against us there would be a large faction of those that oppose the Iraq War now complaining that Bush did nothing.

Too bad I refuted it

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Too bad I refuted it

Maybe you did...but I am sure others would not.

Originally posted by LionelHutz

Debates prove nothing other than who is the better debater. I bet if you'd let him Saddam would've been willing to debate whether he ever tortured people too. Would that have proved that it didn't happen?

“I bet” assumptions again, from someone who is defending Bush? Extremely ironic

He was going to provide proof to Bush, since the UN inspectors findings and facts were not enough evidence to show that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Bush declined, because he knew Saddam could give him substantial evidence to prove he did disarm. Another reason why he declined, was because it was draw attention to the fact that the UN inspectors found nothing in Iraq, yet Bush still told the American people Saddam did indeed have weapons.

there is nothing worse then sitting her watching a liberal defend saddams honor in an attempt to get a knock on bush, its freaking pathetic.

Originally posted by Travh20
there is nothing worse then sitting her watching a liberal defend saddams honor in an attempt to get a knock on bush, its freaking pathetic.

Defending his honor? How so? I am only saying he did what he was asked of by the World. You on the other hand, are accusing him of not disarming, when he actually did as it was proven by the UN weapons inspectors.

so after defying 12 years of UN demands and resolutions we are just supposed to take the guy for his word becasue hans Blix and his band of keystone cops says so? I dont think so. you may have faith in saddam hussein, but I dont, annd I am glad my president didnt either.

Originally posted by Travh20
so after defying 12 years of UN demands and resolutions we are just supposed to take the guy for his word becasue hans Blix and his band of keystone cops says so? I dont think so. you may have faith in saddam hussein, but I dont, annd I am glad my president didnt either.

How did I have faith in Saddam Hussein? I never did, and never said I did. You are such a fucking liar, Trav. Honestly you don’t even read the words I type.

I didn’t believe Saddam Hussein, therefore I wanted the UN to inspect Iraq and see if he did disarm. The UN found nothing, proving that Saddam didn’t lie.

He didn’t defy the UN, when they went into Iraq and searched for the WMD’s. Making it clear, that he didn’t LIE on this occasion. The most RECENT occasion.

Yet, you get so mad at countries defying the UN…but then also hate the UN and say they have no purpose?

But also Israel has defied the UN by invading the West Bank, which is off limits according to their resolution. Funny, Bush loves Israel, and hates Iraq (since Saddam has had it out for his family). Then he likes Israel, for what reason I’ll never know. Lets them defy the UN but not Saddam? Ironic....

Funny, how the Inspectors proved that Saddam didn’t lie, and he did disarm since we found nothing. But Israel hasn’t left the West Bank, that they are not allowd to be in.

AGAIN, I NEVER TRUSTED SADDAM. THERFORE I WANTED THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS TO GO INTO IRAQ, AND PROVE TO ME SADDAM DIDN’T LIE.

What happened, was the UN found nothing, proving he did do what he was asked, yes after 12 years, but he still did it, proving we had NO reason for war.

Liberal,

For the last time the UN did not proove Saddam got rid of his WMD. Stop trying to make this the case and stop being so freaking arrogant. Let me make this very clear to you, in order for there to be proof Saddam got rid of his WMD you need the proof that he destroyed them. The UN could not do this. THE INABILITY TO FIND WMD IN IRAQ DOES NOT MEAN SADDAM DID NOT HAVE ANY. Your complete logic on this is flawed at the very core.

The sole verifiable proof Saddam was lying that the UN could verify were the missles that exceded range limits set forth by the UN. Saddam tried to hide these from the weapons inspectors, what else was he successful in?

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
How did I have faith in Saddam Hussein? I never did, and never said I did. You are such a fucking liar, Trav. Honestly you don’t even read the words I type.

I didn’t believe Saddam Hussein, therefore I wanted the UN to inspect Iraq and see if he did disarm. The UN found nothing, proving that Saddam didn’t lie.

He didn’t defy the UN, when they went into Iraq and searched for the WMD’s. Making it clear, that he didn’t LIE on this occasion. The most RECENT occasion.

Yet, you get so mad at countries defying the UN…but then also hate the UN and say they have no purpose?

But also Israel has defied the UN by invading the West Bank, which is off limits according to their resolution. Funny, Bush loves Israel, and hates Iraq (since Saddam has had it out for his family). Then he likes Israel, for what reason I’ll never know. Lets them defy the UN but not Saddam? Ironic....

Funny, how the Inspectors proved that Saddam didn’t lie, and he did disarm since we found nothing. But Israel hasn’t left the West Bank, that they are not allowd to be in.

AGAIN, I NEVER TRUSTED SADDAM. THERFORE I WANTED THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS TO GO INTO IRAQ, AND PROVE TO ME SADDAM DIDN’T LIE.

What happened, was the UN found nothing, proving he did do what he was asked, yes after 12 years, but he still did it, proving we had NO reason for war.

you need to relax liberal. maybe if you didnt constantly dfend saddam people wouldnt thing you were sticking up for him. I dont care about the UN, but when someone makes a threat they damn well carry through with it. any parent knows that if you threaten to spank yu kid for being bad and you dont do it that kid will walk all over you after taht. the UN has had the justification to take down saddam for years, everytime he broke a resolution or agreement and nothing happened he got a free pass to act anyway he wanted. The UN inspectors were not searching every house and every garage in iraq. they stuk to military bases and obvious places, which obviously a liar and rule breaker like saddam wouldnt keep his stuff. why are you so dense to realize that a team of UN idiots searching military bases after calling ahead to let em know htey were coming wont find anything. your desire for peace is so strong you are willing to believe anything. it would take a team of 100,000 inspectors 10 years to do a thourough search to convince me. not a hundred 2 months. that is not a search, its a cluster f*ck.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
“I bet” assumptions again, from someone who is defending Bush? Extremely ironic

My "I bet" statement was being used to set up a hypothetical question, not to prove anything. Nice try though. :rolleyes: And I've stated many times that I have no plans on voting for Bush this fall. But I can't let stupid statements about how Saddam was going to "prove" something by entering into a debate go by without comment.

I can see the debate between saddam and dubya now

"I destroyed my weapons"

"no you didnt"

"yes I did"

"no you didnt"

"yes I did"

"no you didnt"

How is that going to prove anything liberal?

Liberal, you've proved your point over and over, and I agree with you, but this is just a debate that will never be won, because the oppositions are too deep. Hopefully we will get rid of Bush in November. If not, America will have a hard road ahead.

I would like for all the Republicans to know that I have no hate for them nor Bush. It's only the issues and character that I hate.

Originally posted by Travh20
you need to relax liberal. maybe if you didnt constantly dfend saddam people wouldnt thing you were sticking up for him. I dont care about the UN, but when someone makes a threat they damn well carry through with it. any parent knows that if you threaten to spank yu kid for being bad and you dont do it that kid will walk all over you after taht. the UN has had the justification to take down saddam for years, everytime he broke a resolution or agreement and nothing happened he got a free pass to act anyway he wanted. The UN inspectors were not searching every house and every garage in iraq. they stuk to military bases and obvious places, which obviously a liar and rule breaker like saddam wouldnt keep his stuff. why are you so dense to realize that a team of UN idiots searching military bases after calling ahead to let em know htey were coming wont find anything. your desire for peace is so strong you are willing to believe anything. it would take a team of 100,000 inspectors 10 years to do a thourough search to convince me. not a hundred 2 months. that is not a search, its a cluster f*ck.

I am not defending Saddam or his actions. I am defending the fact that in this case, the most recent case, he did not lie and “defy” the UN or the world. The only reason you do not care about the UN and say they cannot properly search Iraq (which you have no proof or evidence of), is because that is the easiest thing to do. Label the UN, as a disorganized set of idiots, and say they can’t really search Iraq, therefore we had to invade. Give me a break. Sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it.

The UN did have justification to take down Saddam for years. Not wanting to start a war, everyone decided it would be best to stop exports and imports from and to Iraq. This was to “teach” Saddam a lesson. The sad fact was, that the Iraqi people suffered massive health and food issues at the hands of Saddam’s poor judgments. That made the world start back up, and help Iraq once again. So really the UN did act, and tried to punish Saddam. But since that plan failed, we decided enough was enough and we were going to ask for Saddam to disarm once and for all.

Knowing the UN would act, this time, Saddam disarmed. The UN inspectors went into Iraq, to make sure he did disarm. The reason they went in was because they knew he had a history of lying, and he was not to be trusted. So the UN went into Iraq, and found nothing. The only reason they got 2 months into the searching, was because we the United States kicked the UN out of Iraq, and then saying the UN couldn’t search all of Iraq? That’s a bit funny, weird, and hypocritical if you ask me.

Them calling ahead, would not give Saddam enough time to load up, and ship huge amounts of “weapons”. The calling ahead was nothing, and isn’t even valid in your argument. They called yes, but you cannot take HUGE weapons without them getting noticed on satellites, and everything else the UN put into Iraq. The UN is not going to be dumb enough to call and give them enough time to hide something. I’m sure they calculated it, so Saddam wouldn’t have time to hide anything. Plus the fact that we have found no weapons makes it all the more clear. Plus, don’t you think if they had any, they would have used them by now?

To say they “couldn’t” search everything, or look everywhere is false. If the UN can’t do it, then how can the US do it…while occupying Iraq? To say the UN is unequipped and then say the US is equipped to fight a war on terror, liberate the people of Iraq and do everything else, plus find the weapons is just plain idiotic. The UN just had to search, and they were well equipped to do so. They used technology, and everything else to try and find anything.

Also, yes he has defied the UN. But MANY other countries have as well. Israel? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Iran? So that reason is completely out, because other countries have, and we don’t just jump to war with them.

Yet, Iraq, which was proven to be no threat, after the UN went into Iraq, was our “first” pick. Even though these other countries weren’t even proven to be “un-armed”. Yet we go after Iraq first, not knowing what other dangers could be lurking out in the world.

Going in circles, lalala

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
I would like for all the Republicans to know that I have no hate for them nor Bush. It's only the issues and character that I hate.

diddo

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life

Knowing the UN would act, this time, Saddam disarmed.





:rolleyes: sure, he just blew up all his "huge weapons" right? the UN put the fear of god into saddam, or ws it the 200,000 US and British troops breathing down his neck? teh UN is as harmless as a toothless heelhound, and everyone but you seems to know this. LMAO, knowing the UN would act, this time, LOL, do you even see how stupid that sounds?

Originally posted by Travh20
:rolleyes: sure, he just blew up all his "huge weapons" right? the UN put the fear of god into saddam, or ws it the 200,000 US and British troops breathing down his neck? teh UN is as harmless as a toothless heelhound, and everyone but you seems to know this. LMAO, knowing the UN would act, this time, LOL, do you even see how stupid that sounds?

The reason he knew was because they stopped imports and exports from his country. So he knew the UN was willing to act.

Glad you took ONE little sentence I said and refuted it. Good work.
:p

all it takes is that one sentace to show how stupid belief that saddam would all of a sudden start listening to the UN. so waht, they stopped imports and exports, you already said they started them again. read your own post. and whats with this "we"? it seems no one was willing to do shit about saddam until bush pushed the issue. you were willing to just hope the guy was being honest. I guess your mommy never told you the story of the duck and the scorpion. you see, there was a duck swimming along the river when a scorpion waved hm down and asked to get a ride across the river. the duck was warry, but after the scorpion promised not to sting him the duck agreed and took the scorpion across. once on the other side, the scorpion got off and stung the duck. the duck was shoked and stunned the scorpion lied to him. "why did you sting me?" the stunned duck said. the scorpion replied "because, I am a scorpion."

you see, people are who they are, saddam was a liar and killer. taking his word on anything would be stupid. the fact is that the inspectors simpley could not search iraq thouroghly enough to sastify anyone but the people with lowest of standards. peeking your head in a door to look for big barrels marked POISON GAS may be good for you, but not for me.

Originally posted by Travh20
all it takes is that one sentace to show how stupid belief that saddam would all of a sudden start listening to the UN. so waht, they stopped imports and exports, you already said they started them again. read your own post. and whats with this "we"? it seems no one was willing to do shit about saddam until bush pushed the issue. you were willing to just hope the guy was being honest.

you see, people are who they are, saddam was a liar and killer. taking his word on anything would be stupid. the fact is that the inspectors simpley could not search iraq thouroghly enough to sastify anyone but the people with lowest of standards. peeking your head in a door to look for big barrels marked POISON GAS may be good for you, but not for me.

Saddam knew that the UN had enough, since they had to stop and then start the exports again. Plus the world was getting sick of having to change, just for Saddam. So in return he knew the world had enough of his “BS”, and so he knew he had to follow orders.

Since we knew he was a liar, we sent the UN into Iraq, to see if he didn’t lie. He DIDN’T.

We never took his word, that is WHY we put the UN into IRAQ.

Plus Israel invaded the West Bank, against the UN resolution they were given. Why isn’t America and the world sick of them? Saudi Arabia, and Iran have done illegal activities….why don’t we do anything about them?

so the UN will take saddams shit for 12 years and not one second longer!

Originally posted by Travh20
so the UN will take saddams shit for 12 years and not one second longer!

The UN will take Saddam’s, and all of the other countries they let get away with shit. Except, Saddam’s “shit” was taken care of, because the UN told him he had to disarm, and then they followed up and went into Iraq to make sure he didn’t lie. Therefore proving he didn’t lie.

The fact we left the UN resolutions on the Iraq war, just proves how much respect we have. To get mad at Saddam for breaking them, and then turn around and do the same is just idiotic.

We are still taking Israel’s shit, since we are letting them invade the West Bank, and we are also taking many other countries shit. We just happen to attack Iraq, after their shit is taken care of.