TM, you really get this worked up over this shit?

Either your one passionate mother fucker over politics or you have a vendetta against the good ol' USA!

You American hating bastard.

I'll explain my position as someone who has done the research and is telling 100% fact and not "liberal spin".

The Iraq was is an illegal war.

Specifically, GWB wanted to get rid of Saddam, for whatever reason he (or his puppetmaster Cheney) only know.

They tried to get Tony Blair to go along, and Blair's legal advisors wisely advised him that going to war strictly for regime change is ILLEGAL.

So, they got together and discussed FAKE legal EXCUSES they could use to sell their knowingly illegal war.

The one they settled on was WMD, because there was already two UN resolutions regarding them, and it was the easiest phony excuse to latch on to.

They then intentionally started lying to the world about "imminent threats", "mushroom clouds", yellowcake in Niger, aluminum tubes, and other KNOWINGLY FAKE evidence to support their KNOWINGLY ILLEGAL WAR.

They then started wiretapping and spying on UN members in Manhattan, to blackmail them into keeping their mouths shut when the UN was debating whether to go along with the war.

They then sent an insufficient amount of troops with insufficient body and vehicle armour, to fight their knowingly illegal war based on knowingly fake intelligence.

Rumsfeld then was quoted as saying "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." This was a total bullshit thing to say, since it would only apply when you HAVE TO go to war to save lives or a real imminent threat, and not when you are fighting a knowingly illegal and unnecessary war.

They then come out with studies showing that 80% of those american soldiers who died of torso wounds would have lived with more sufficient body armour (and this does not take into account those who died and lost limbs because of insufficient humvee armour) - a fact that makes Rumsfeld an even bigger scumbag for sending troops into harms way for no good reason, with no good protection.

Now, Gecko, if you just assume as a hypothetical that everything I just typed is 100% true, then shouldn't the Bush administration be impeached and subject to war crimes tribunals? Remember, the question is IF what I'm typing is true, so don't bother challenging what I'm typing.

Quite frankly, I consider myself a bigger patriot than those who blindly support the administration "because we're at war". As far as I'm concerned, that was probably one of Bush's real excuses for starting his knowingly illegal war in the first place - so no one would question anything he does and so he'd get reelected no matter how shitty a president he is.

I'm willing to do the research, stand up for everything this country was founded on, and shed tears over our brave soldiers dying in an illegal war, while neocons merely call anyone who points out the truth a bad american for "not supporting our troops at a time of war".

I hope that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from, and the passion I feel about the subject matter.

Peace, I'm outta here.

BUMP

Talk about anti-american.

Not one person - dem, republican, libby, neocon - not one person responded to this thread.

Why don't you move to Russia, you commie bastards!

DO NOT LISTEN TO TAYMELO!

HE IS ALL LIES!

LIES!

F. G. W. B.

Foxy George Walker Bush?

How long-winded can a person be?

Tak talk talk talk talk. That's all you liberals do. All complaints. No answers.

Just kidding. Wanted to work you up there for a moment.

The truth is this. The Saudi's wanted Hussein out. It's as simple as that. The first Iraq war was to weaken Husseins powerbase to allow the kurds the sweep in and overthrow Hussein (legal, sort of...). But when Bush deferred to Schwartzkopf to make the deal, he allowed the Iraqis to maintain a fleet of gunships, for "self-protection" (Stormin' Norman was not in the loop, apparently), and they wiped out the Kurd insurgency.

With Hussein still a problem, we go in again, but this time to finish the job Bush Sr. could not accomplish.

As for the United Nations, I've never had faith in the UN. It really is one of the most useless world bodies around. They failed in Somalia (and we had to bail their asses out -- twice). They failed in Serbia. They've failed with the famine in Africa. They failed with Sadaam and the inspectors. They only power they truly have is to threaten a country with sanctions, and then have the U.S. enforce those sanctions.

The truth is, no halfway decent soldier would give his life for the U.N., and because of that it's force is ill-manned, ill-equipped, and poorly managed. No dictator is afraid of the UN... but they're very afraid of the United States.

I didn't reply because I have nothing to argue. I've stated many times that GWB and this war are a total farse. But I, as all americans are, am subjected to being a non-partriot or not a troop supporter if I feel they are a sham. I hope to god that every soldier comes back alive. But just because I support them doesn't mean I have to support the man that sent them. The problem is that it's pointless to talk to some people about this stuff because they'll deny it's true anyway.

How long-winded can a person be?

Tak talk talk talk talk. That's all you liberals do. All complaints. No answers.

Just kidding. Wanted to work you up there for a moment.

The truth is this. The Saudi's wanted Hussein out. It's as simple as that. The first Iraq war was to weaken Husseins powerbase to allow the kurds the sweep in and overthrow Hussein (legal, sort of...). But when Bush deferred to Schwartzkopf to make the deal, he allowed the Iraqis to maintain a fleet of gunships, for "self-protection" (Stormin' Norman was not in the loop, apparently), and they wiped out the Kurd insurgency.

With Hussein still a problem, we go in again, but this time to finish the job Bush Sr. could not accomplish.

As for the United Nations, I've never had faith in the UN. It really is one of the most useless world bodies around. They failed in Somalia (and we had to bail their asses out -- twice). They failed in Serbia. They've failed with the famine in Africa. They failed with Sadaam and the inspectors. They only power they truly have is to threaten a country with sanctions, and then have the U.S. enforce those sanctions.

The truth is, no halfway decent soldier would give his life for the U.N., and because of that it's force is ill-manned, ill-equipped, and poorly managed. No dictator is afraid of the UN... but they're very afraid of the United States.

Denny:

You make a lot of statements that really don't address the initial post in this thread.

From you, I'd like the following:

Tell me if I was wrong about anything I stated in the initial post in this thread. If so, please elaborate.

Fine. Here we go:



The Iraq was is an illegal war. Based on who's standards? The UN? What about the Falklands, or Panama? Were those illegal as well?

Specifically, GWB wanted to get rid of Saddam, for whatever reason he (or his puppetmaster Cheney) only know. No, the Saudis do, and Bush Sr. failed the first time around

They tried to get Tony Blair to go along, and Blair's legal advisors wisely advised him that going to war strictly for regime change is ILLEGAL. Sure, and that's why he shared the podium how many times during this "war", siding with Bush?

So, they got together and discussed FAKE legal EXCUSES they could use to sell their knowingly illegal war. Both the CIA and the inspectors suspected WMDs. Constantly the inspectors were led away from areas or denied access, or simply stalled. Again, the UN's weakness was on clear display here. Originally, the inspectors suspected the hiding of WMDs, including Hans Blix, who later said there was no WMD evidence

The one they settled on was WMD, because there was already two UN resolutions regarding them, and it was the easiest phony excuse to latch on to. See above. When two leading bodies suggest that there ARE WMD's, do you wait, or move on it.?

They then intentionally started lying to the world about "imminent threats", "mushroom clouds", yellowcake in Niger, aluminum tubes, and other KNOWINGLY FAKE evidence to support their KNOWINGLY ILLEGAL WAR Again, do you dive in and take your chances about being wrong, or do you do nothing and take your chances about being wrong?

They then started wiretapping and spying on UN members in Manhattan, to blackmail them into keeping their mouths shut when the UN was debating whether to go along with the war.You think the US Goverment is dirty. Try checking out the UN's track record. Tell me exactly the last time a U.N. resolution was actually enforced? There's a lot of gladhanding and blind-eyeing at the U.N.. There's also a lot of information to be had. I'm not personally in favor of wiretapping the U.N., but if playing dirty is necessary to root out a possible threat, then so be it.

They then sent an insufficient amount of troops with insufficient body and vehicle armour, to fight their knowingly illegal war based on knowingly fake intelligence. The falseness of the intelligence shed light upon itself after the campaign began. This is a country that used gas on Iran extensively during their war with them, and there was every reason to believe they would continue that trend on us. Again, why were the UN inspectors getting the shaft day in and day out if there was nothing to hide? You're right about the insufficient troops and armor. But then again, we are also in Afghanistan, as well, not to mention around the globe without the media's knowledge, going after cells.

Rumsfeld then was quoted as saying "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." This was a total bullshit thing to say, since it would only apply when you HAVE TO go to war to save lives or a real imminent threat, and not when you are fighting a knowingly illegal and unnecessary war. Rumsfeld is a fucking idiot, I'll agree with you there, but then again, see above.

They then come out with studies showing that 80% of those american soldiers who died of torso wounds would have lived with more sufficient body armour (and this does not take into account those who died and lost limbs because of insufficient humvee armour) - a fact that makes Rumsfeld an even bigger scumbag for sending troops into harms way for no good reason, with no good protection. See above

Now, Gecko, if you just assume as a hypothetical that everything I just typed is 100% true, then shouldn't the Bush administration be impeached and subject to war crimes tribunals? Remember, the question is IF what I'm typing is true, so don't bother challenging what I'm typing. No, because Democrats voted for action as well, and to bring down the administration would be leathal for the Dems.

Quite frankly, I consider myself a bigger patriot than those who blindly support the administration "because we're at war". As far as I'm concerned, that was probably one of Bush's real excuses for starting his knowingly illegal war in the first place - so no one would question anything he does and so he'd get reelected no matter how shitty a president he is.

I'm willing to do the research, stand up for everything this country was founded on, and shed tears over our brave soldiers dying in an illegal war, while neocons merely call anyone who points out the truth a bad american for "not supporting our troops at a time of war".

I hope that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from, and the passion I feel about the subject matter.

Peace, I'm outta here.

I hope that helps a little

Your disgust and hate really should be more directed at George Tenant. It is a known fact that Tenant hid any suspect data on Iraq's WMD from GWB and only showed data showing he had them. There's a new book out by a NYT editor detailing this. The writer is a known GWB hater (self-admitted) and he calls Iraq Tenants mess not GWB.

I respect your opionions TM, even though I disagree with them. I have no issue at all with those that hold similar beliefs.

P.S. I just hope we have enough troops, will and GWB has the political capital to go march to Tehran and take out the Iranians. They are a real problem.

They are a real problem.
unfortunately they were a bigger problem before we invaded Iraq.

So whats your take on the claim by sources Iraq being on the radar right after 9/11? and what is your stance on long time Republican(original non neo consersative) Colin powell's not seeing eye to eye with the radical ideas from cheney and his crew to the point of resigning.

Ya know, I really don't care to debate the right/wrong for going to war with Iraq. For every point I come up with someone can easily counter-point it. It's a never ending cycle, no one wins.

I will not judge this war for at least several more years to see it's total impact. Then somewhere down the road when all the dominos have fallen I will look back and see if the way I think today still stands.

I will agree that the administration poorly handled and was ill equipped to help build Iraq after the war. This to me was most disappointing.


Iran was a problem and is a problem. The only question in front of us now is what do we do. I have read that there are war plans in place with Nato.

odd take on the war. but fair enough, you're entitled reserve judgement.

Only reason i ask is because i don't see how George Bush has a conservative following when he's very radical in his ways. And sometimes it worries me for people to defend the white house just because their party has a rep in there. I actually think that is what leads to the circular arguments, because 9 times out of ten people are arguing for their parties rather than themselves which is only gonna go so far before it recycles.

anyways i agree that iran is starting serious trouble, but if i was iran i would too. you have troops heavily deployed in iraq and some leftovers in afghanistan. if i was gonna flex iranian muscle, now would be the time.

also the ieaq strategy was horrible and i wonder what value its gonna be when/if we have to deal with iran.

Fine. Here we go:



The Iraq was is an illegal war. Based on who's standards? The UN? What about the Falklands, or Panama? Were those illegal as well? Based on the fact that war for regime change alone is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right these days, to they? Who is talking about the Falklands?

Specifically, GWB wanted to get rid of Saddam, for whatever reason he (or his puppetmaster Cheney) only know. No, the Saudis do, and Bush Sr. failed the first time around Fine. I'll go along with that. So why did Bush go along with the Saudis?

They tried to get Tony Blair to go along, and Blair's legal advisors wisely advised him that going to war strictly for regime change is ILLEGAL. Sure, and that's why he shared the podium how many times during this "war", siding with Bush? If that's sarcasm, you're just plain wrong. WTF does sharing a podium have to do with what I posted? If you don't believe me, Google the Downing Street Memos.

So, they got together and discussed FAKE legal EXCUSES they could use to sell their knowingly illegal war. Both the CIA and the inspectors suspected WMDs. Constantly the inspectors were led away from areas or denied access, or simply stalled. Again, the UN's weakness was on clear display here. Originally, the inspectors suspected the hiding of WMDs, including Hans Blix, who later said there was no WMD evidenceAgain, you are wrong. Again, read the Downing Street Memos and related materials. They decided several months in advance to use the phony WMD excuse, and even discussed how they could still go to war even if they found nothing and Saddam cooperated - and they followed through to a "t".

The one they settled on was WMD, because there was already two UN resolutions regarding them, and it was the easiest phony excuse to latch on to. See above. When two leading bodies suggest that there ARE WMD's, do you wait, or move on it.?They had no fear of being attacked (or of Israel or anyone else being attacked) by WMD. Again, it was just a convenient excuse b/c, as you point out, a lot of people thought they might have them.

They then intentionally started lying to the world about "imminent threats", "mushroom clouds", yellowcake in Niger, aluminum tubes, and other KNOWINGLY FAKE evidence to support their KNOWINGLY ILLEGAL WAR Again, do you dive in and take your chances about being wrong, or do you do nothing and take your chances about being wrong?Again, it had nothing to do with whether they were right about WMD or not. This is very important - THEY DIDN'T CARE IF SADDAM HAD THEM. THEY WERE NOT AFRAID OF "MUSHROOM CLOUDS.

They then started wiretapping and spying on UN members in Manhattan, to blackmail them into keeping their mouths shut when the UN was debating whether to go along with the war.You think the US Goverment is dirty. Try checking out the UN's track record. Tell me exactly the last time a U.N. resolution was actually enforced? There's a lot of gladhanding and blind-eyeing at the U.N.. There's also a lot of information to be had. I'm not personally in favor of wiretapping the U.N., but if playing dirty is necessary to root out a possible threat, then so be it.It wasn't to root out a threat. It was to silence those who would go against their knowingly unnecessary war.

I hope that helps a little

doesn't it seem stupid as fuck to be worrying about legalities in war? Is there really a civilized and morally correct way to go about killing thousands of people?

I don't see how the president can't talk people into peace. War is a sign of incompetance in most cases if you ask me. This would be a good example of that.

Al Franken said:

Hahahaha. You mean that WTFDetroit poster, Taymelo? I've never heard of him and I don't know what you're talking about.

Next question?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/06.06/photos/07-classday2-450.jpg

I don't think this war is to benefit the Saudi's at all - I think it's the exact opposite. Afterall how many of the 9/11 terorists were Saudi?? Something like 75% was it not??

America is too dependant on Saudi oil in order to get "revenge" right now. Furthermore you can't take overt revent on the Muslim Holy Land without pissing off way too many people. I think the deal is that America went into Iraq to get their oil so they can then turn around and tell Saudi Arabia to piss off and take their oil and shove it up their ass. Last time I checked, you cannot eat oil and Saudi Arabia has nothing else to offer the world comunity. The Saudi royal family will be overthrown by the starving public and revenge will be had.

Sure they could sell their oil to China, however do you think the Chinese will pay them near what they are asking??

I don't think this war is to benefit the Saudi's at all - I think it's the exact opposite. Afterall how many of the 9/11 terorists were Saudi?? Something like 75% was it not??

America is too dependant on Saudi oil in order to get "revenge" right now. Furthermore you can't take overt revent on the Muslim Holy Land without pissing off way too many people. I think the deal is that America went into Iraq to get their oil so they can then turn around and tell Saudi Arabia to piss off and take their oil and shove it up their ass. Last time I checked, you cannot eat oil and Saudi Arabia has nothing else to offer the world comunity. The Saudi royal family will be overthrown by the starving public and revenge will be had.

Sure they could sell their oil to China, however do you think the Chinese will pay them near what they are asking??
ummm yea the saudis arent being invaded...sounds like a great benefit for the country that harbors quite a few terrorists and is the birth place of a few of their leaders.

and for the record the starving public connects us to their hate for the prince since our president rubs shoulders with him like they went to college together. and though they try to hide it they have constant issues with radical muslims in various areas.

and though they control most of the country they do not control it all. being american in some areas or even non-muslim can get you killed.


2005

In 2005, Saudi security forces made a great deal of successes against the insurgents. Many militants were captured and several killed, including several by American forces in Iraq. One of these, Saleh Al Oufi, was described as the al-Qaeda chief in the kingdom, and was killed on August 18.

On 28 December, Saudi security services killed Abdul Rahman Al-Suwailemi and Abdul Rahman ibn Salen Al-Miteb in separate incidents.

In the morning, Al-Miteb was stopped by two policemen and opened fire, killing both. This set off a running firefight during which three other policemen were killed. Automatic weapons, grenades, forged documents and almost a half million riyals in cash were also seized.

Despite these successes, foreign governments still have travel warnings in effect for Saudi Arabia.

The war is over the fact that the US wanted to get their hands on the oil in Iraqi.

The US tried to use UN resolutions to halt oil coming out in order to try and get the people to overthrow Saddam, when that wasnt happening, Bush and Cheney had to do something.

The war is a convenient way for Cheney to become a billionaire. Who got most of the contracts after the war was supposedly over? Yeah Cheney's ex company.

This was also about Junior trying to make the Bush name not associated with failure, becase Bush Sr. first war with Iraqi was a failure. So Bush Jr, wants to try to make the family name respectable again.

Lets all be honest, Gore got jewed out of being president and Junior got lucky enough that the most important state just happened to be a start that his brother was governor of. If the swing state had been Penn or Ohio or even Michigan, Gore would have won the election, because Junior didnt have the governor in his back pocket, not that those states wouldnt lean one way or another, but Jeb was going to do everything he could to make sure his state went to Bush.

I could go on forever on this. I am not Dem or Rep. I vote for each candidate based on what I know about them, not what party they belong to.

I am a huge support of John McCain, but hate Bush.

I was a support of Clinton, but hated Gore.


Art

i never understood the Gore hate. people claim that he was too snobby. but i think it was just jealousy it seems. theres no real way to be jealous of bush, even all that money i'd never wanna be that dumb.

Bush is a terrorist.