Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
How can we claim to live in a democratic society, and read that and not have it induce vomitting?
"the decision to invade Iraq"?
That is a decision that belongs TO THE PEOPLE. Not a secret that should be hidden, misrepresented, or sold under false pretenses.
|
We have a representative government. Much less messy than a strict Democracy. We elect representatives who are free to do whta they feel best represents our wishes or our best interests.
That is what Bush has done...act in our best long term interests.
And what's more, he got Congressional approval for going into Iraq, so the war is
YOUR WAR TOO! (Vomit loving beyotch.)
Now STFU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
What bhkad is REALLY doing is trying to give excuses for why the Iraq war could have been justified, IGNORING the fact that the REAL reasons that WERE given were pretty much unilaterally false.
|
You are the kind of guy who would have insisted that FDR reveal his knowledge that we had broken the Japanese secret communications code in WWII.
There are some things you just do not reveal, dummy.
Quote:
|
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. - Goethe
|
This should be the sign over your avatar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
"behind the scenes"...
So one has to wonder how somebody like bhkad can make such so a definitive statement as to what supposedly "happened".
Moreover, it was the U.S. who went to the U.N. Where was Israel?
|
I read and think, therefore I post.
You just post.
Israel would not have been strategically well advised to announce their intentions to the world, dummy.
You know that real life is quite different that TV, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
And furthermore, where was Israel's INDEPENDENT analysis which told them that Iraq supposedly had WMDs.
Which it actually didn't.
|
We didn't NEED there to be WMD's to justify invading. Tony Blair suggested GWB go to the UN a second time with the WMD info. If GWB had just taken the bull by the horns after telling the UN we were going to enforce the UN resolutions (and invalidate them before the world if they didn't enforce their own resolutions) and after getting the approval of Congress none of the crap that has gone on since then would have been possible.
Here's something you should know:
Quote:
"...that's the whole point of the Bush Doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq. And 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and whatever, unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland, something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do, something the Japanese could never do, something no enemy in the last 150 years could do . And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat. Because Saddam Husein, after the Gulf War had put "Allahu Akbar" into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy - America, the Great Satan. He had tried to assassinate the President of the United States. He had held international conferences for terrorists. He had hosted Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, all of this Saddam Hussein had done. And so if you look out at the world with any modicum of responsibility, on 9/11, you'll see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States.
David Horowitz
David Horowitz on Book TV: Party of Defeat - Debate Politics Forums
|
He was a bad man who needed to go DOWN!
The following is part paraphrased and partially quoted from the same video comments by Horowitz.
Many Dems and media were upset that GWB would use the word, "Evil" to describe Iraq prior to the invasion even though the regime had murdered more than 300,000 Iraqis and buried them in shallow mass graves, dropped poison gas on the Kurds, had invaded two countries and even though Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War truce.
Al Gore, on Feb. 2, 2002, gave a speech following the President's State of the Union, "Axis of Evil" speech. In it he defended the President's use of the word evil. Here's what he (
Al Gore,) said about whether Iraq posed a threat: "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself." And the US would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down.
The Democrats have betrayed their own war. They've betrayed their own country. They've betrayed their own men and women in the field.
The Cease Fire Truce ending the Gulf War were UN Resolutions 687 & 689 which stated in effect that, 'you will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build WMD's. And you will allow UN Inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you are not doing it because nobody in their right mind can trust you.'
Saddam systematically violated all of the UN resolutions until in 1998 he threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
Hillary Clinton once said that not only did she vote for the war, when she was defending her support for the war, because of the intelligence that the Bush Administration gave her but also because of the intelligence she got from the Clinton Administration.
But if you want to talk about WMD and whether and how the WORLD came to believe Saddam had WMD's you ever heard of the TV News magazine show called 60 (fuckin) Minutes???
Quote:
And in June 2000 you gave a speech in where you said Iraq would not disarm until others in the region did. A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone,'" Piro recalls.
That June 2000 speech was about weapons of mass destruction. In talking casually about that speech, Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months.
"Oh, you couldn't imagine the excitement that I was feeling at that point," Piro remembers.
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.
Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.
"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.
"Not initially, no," Piro says.
Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions, Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion - CBS News
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
What this boils down to is now some people are trying to give out an excuse that we went to war in Iraq because SOMEBODY ELSE thought they had WMDs...
The story just keeps getting more and more convoluted!
|
You called the part of the story when the Three Little Pigs took shelter in the brick house, convoluted!
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
"most of them WERE good ones"?
THIS reason was NEVER on the table, so it's obviously not on the list in the first place.
WHAT reason that was ACTUALLY sold to the U.S. and/or the U.N. was a "good one".
And a further reason this is absurd is because the Bush administration DID HAVE one MAJOR reason for the invasion.
And now that that one is proven false, NOW they want to balk that we can't have just "one reason"?
Anybody else notice how duplicitous this all is? How much double-talk is going on here?
WRONG!
How dare you lie and claim "we chose" when "we" obviously didn't get to "choose" anything along those lines.
And furthermore, to present an ideal that we went to war to PREVENT SOMEBODY ELSE from going to war just reeks of a mentality that is worse than the reasons that saw the start of World War I.
|
