Resign... or Change, Mr. President

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Everyone here is over looking (why we went to Iraq) one very important fact; Iraq never complied with the cease fire agreement of Desert Storm; to allow the UN inspectors full access. If you can recall the failure of Iraq to follow these orders, which resulted in several UN violations decrees being issued. Was all the motivation needed. The line of WMD was just a public relations line for the media to grab. The fact that some here still follow this phantom line is testament that you are just a typical mind-less sheep.
Isreal rarely complies with the United Nations but nobody invades them (rightly so).
 

jimstud

Banned
Everyone here is over looking (why we went to Iraq) one very important fact; Iraq never complied with the cease fire agreement of Desert Storm; to allow the UN inspectors full access. If you can recall the failure of Iraq to follow these orders, which resulted in several UN violations decrees being issued. Was all the motivation needed. The line of WMD was just a public relations line for the media to grab. The fact that some here still follow this phantom line is testament that you are just a typical mind-less sheep.

what you are overlooking is that jr. went over to finish what daddy couldn't
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Well, it's sort of an "un-war" type of war. I do have a feeling that something bad is going to happen there, probably sooner than later.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
In all the debate over whether or not there was WMD in Iraq, the powers that be framed the debate so the most important question of all is not asked nor discussed. That Question!

Who and where did Saddam Hussien get the WMD and the technology to make it? Once you understand that, it's then very reasonable to understand why no WMD was found all while at the same time the conclusive claim is made that he had them to begin with.

How the United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein

Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine

Not that we've not built and financed our enemies before!
 

tieguy

Banned
In all the debate over whether or not there was WMD in Iraq, the powers that be framed the debate so the most important question of all is not asked nor discussed. That Question!

Who and where did Saddam Hussien get the WMD and the technology to make it? Once you understand that, it's then very reasonable to understand why no WMD was found all while at the same time the conclusive claim is made that he had them to begin with.

How the United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein


Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine

Not that we've not built and financed our enemies before!

[video=google;6244851259954264539]

I think a poll in the eighties would have shown americans overwhelmingly willing to support Iraq in its war against then hated Iran. In fact as much hatred as us citizens felt towards iran I would think our citizens in the 80's would have been incensed if we had chosen neutrality over supporting iraq against Iran. We often takes sides and changes sides as do other countries.

 

klein

Für Meno :)
I think a poll in the eighties would have shown americans overwhelmingly willing to support Iraq in its war against then hated Iran. In fact as much hatred as us citizens felt towards iran I would think our citizens in the 80's would have been incensed if we had chosen neutrality over supporting iraq against Iran. We often takes sides and changes sides as do other countries.

Name me those others, that supported the Taliban, and Iraq ?
Good wasted US taxpayers money, and still paying highly for it.

Lets not forget Panama & Nicaragura, another good one. Give those drug lords/dealers your best army rifles.
 
Last edited:

TechGrrl

Space Cadet
so you too must believe in Congress' refusal to extend the jobless benefits is totally due to those nasty republicans, who are not in the majority in this session.
The Republicans continue to filibuster any attempt to pass the bill. Last time I looked, it only took a majority of the 100 senators to pass a bill, unless there is a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to close debate on the filibuster.
Any factual analysis of the voting records of the Senate since the Democrats took a majority in 2006 shows clearly that the Republicans have used the filibuster far more times than at any other time in the history of the nation.
Let the bill go for an up or down vote, Mitch McConnell.
 

TechGrrl

Space Cadet
did your research tell you about Hussien using chemical weapons on the kurds or did you choose to ignore that point in this discussion? How about chemical weapons in the war with Iran?
And we sold him those chemical weapons....go back to the Reagan administration, and see which guys have photos taken shaking hands with Mr. Saddam Hussein. And never let us forget Iran-Contra, another Ronnie Ray-Gun movie script from hell.
 

TechGrrl

Space Cadet
you are a fool how long was russia over there. nobody ever is going to win a war over there unless you nuke them back into the stone age. is that what you want?
I agree with you in every particular, except that it is impossible to bomb them BACK to the Stone Age, since they have never really LEFT the Stone Age. More bombs simply bounce the rubble around a little bit.
Afghanistan is the devourer of empires....the Soviet Union had no humanitarian scruples holding back it's warfighting tactics, and they couldn't subdue the Afghans. We need to get out quickly and cleanly, and leave the Afghan people to choose their own fate.
 

TechGrrl

Space Cadet
I think a poll in the eighties would have shown americans overwhelmingly willing to support Iraq in its war against then hated Iran. In fact as much hatred as us citizens felt towards iran I would think our citizens in the 80's would have been incensed if we had chosen neutrality over supporting iraq against Iran. We often takes sides and changes sides as do other countries.

In the early 50's, the US of A, in particular, the CIA, helped overthrow a democratically elected government in IRAN, and replaced it with the Shah, a despot as despicable as Saddam Hussein. But he was OUR despot, like so many other dictators that the US has propped up because it is convenient for US and British business interests, in particular, our OIL interests.

After 25 years of the Shah's tyranny, the Islamist extremist clergy was able to overthrow the hated Shah, who the people saw as a puppet of the great Satan, namely the USA.

So the IRAN of today is OUR creation, a result of blowback against our 'nation building' in the 50's.

And, of course, we supported ANOTHER despotic dictator, namely Saddam Hussein, in his war with Iran. We didn't care about his internal politics, or his war crimes then, because he was fighting a country whose regime wasn't to our liking. So we sold him those chemical weapons of mass destruction, and turned a blind eye to how he used them.

And that's why the Iranian government is so successful with their propaganda painting us as the enemy of the Iranian people.

It's history, go look it up. That last link, in particular...

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp

Oh, one further footnote: the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, that was being nationalized by the Iranian government that the CIA overthrew? It later changed its name to British Petroleum....
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
The Republicans continue to filibuster any attempt to pass the bill. Last time I looked, it only took a majority of the 100 senators to pass a bill, unless there is a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to close debate on the filibuster.
Any factual analysis of the voting records of the Senate since the Democrats took a majority in 2006 shows clearly that the Republicans have used the filibuster far more times than at any other time in the history of the nation.
Let the bill go for an up or down vote, Mitch McConnell.

All they have to do is pay for this welfare program and there'd be more than enough votes to end debate. Pay for it Prince Harry.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Name me those others, Iraq ?
.

United Kingdom
France
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Soviet Union
Italy
West Germany
Egypt
Jordan
Singapore

While the primary role of the United States was to provide operational intelligence on the battlefield their major suppliers were the Soviet Union and France. Singapore just happened to be their supplier for chemical weapons. The money came from Italy.

As for the Taliban most of their support came through the United Nations. Other support came directly from Pakistan, the government of Afghanistan, but most of their support came from not nations but Muslim organizations.
 

tieguy

Banned
And, of course, we supported ANOTHER despotic dictator, namely Saddam Hussein, in his war with Iran. We didn't care about his internal politics, or his war crimes then, because he was fighting a country whose regime wasn't to our liking. So we sold him those chemical weapons of mass destruction, and turned a blind eye to how he used them.

And that's why the Iranian government is so successful with their propaganda painting us as the enemy of the Iranian people.

It's history, go look it up. That last link, in particular...

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp

Oh, one further footnote: the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, that was being nationalized by the Iranian government that the CIA overthrew? It later changed its name to British Petroleum....

you guys keep trying to deliver me ancient history.I know the history of BP. If we could manage our foriegn policy in hindsight then the world would be a better place. My point sitll stands that much of what was done back then was justified and supported by the mindset not only of our leadership but americans as a whole. the 80's Iraq / iran war a classic example. Americans despised iran back then and were rooting for an iraqi victory over them. Americans back then would have heartily supported our support of Hussien and Iraq. Until we develop a time machine we have to learn to judge the 8o's with that mindset to understand what took place back then.

the justification of the Iraq war is one where liberals tend to try to avoid history. the search for wmd's has been overstated. If you use that history that is used for your convience then you also have to use history when its an inconvience. A big reason why we believed hussien had wmd's was because he had used them prior. thats why he had the un inspectors looking for them constantly. thats why we including the democratic leaders; were willing to believe the intelligence that said he had them. If hussien had never used those chemical weapons for mass destructive purposes then I think there would have been a lot more resistance to going into Iraq from both sides of the fence.
 
Last edited:
Top