Reply With Quote
LOL...
Didn't realize that was already a year old. However, it does confirm what many of us said. That he had it.
What was there?
LOL...
Didn't realize that was already a year old. However, it does confirm what many of us said. That he had it.
A few isolated s s here and there that escaped destruction after the decision to destroy them, hardly reaches the level we were given to believe he had.
Still doesn't justify the trillions spent on the war/occupation, does it?
LOL shut up WC. Stop reaching.
That was only one of several reason we went there.
Keep making it a single issue war, and you look to be a fool.
WMD was the BIG LIE chosen by the neocons to have Powell spew at the UN for the resolution.
WMD was the MAIN, FIRST, TOP justification for the war, "mushroom clouds", mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes, etc, etc, were all WMD lies.
head pimping Saddam's non-link to WTC for 2 or 3 years after the invastion was another LIE, head icing the WMD cake.
I had written a long response to this but decided it's not worth it.
If you believe that the American people were led to believe that the war was about anything else besides WMDs or 9/11 connections then you're simply an idiot.
The justification for war was about SH giving up his f'ing WMDs. It's elementary at this point and pathetic that anyone would argue otherwise.
I see...
You believe what the media tells you to believe.
Tell me. Where were you during Desert Storm? I was in the Army at the time. There was more to Saddam than WMD.
Let me guess. You also support our help in Libya. Is it because of who was president when by chance?
Consider this:
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq
LOL
YOU... OF ALL PEOPLE.... claiming someone isn't voicing an independent view.
lol grats on being in the first gulf war but unfortunately for you that has NOTHING to do with the U.S. invading. Were you even overseas? My entire family that was of age was also in the military, more then half serving in Iraq including both my parents, grandfather, and all of my aunts and uncles. And not all of them were hiding behind a desk or on base like I'm guessing you were. Tell me what you know that they don't because not a single one of them supported the last war.
There was NOTHING more to this invasion outside of oil and WMDs. And yes I took what the media told me because believe it or not the media WAS PRO WAR heading into the invasion. Everyone was on board because everyone was told by our government that Iraq had WMDs and was willing to give them to terrorists.
If the purpose was not WMDs then what was? Nation building? Atrocities?
Try again.
And for not having an independent view, what can you possibly base that on? Is it because I'm not acting like a dumb ass and spouting off something re ed just to say I think differently?
Ok, I'll bite, what were the other reasons?
(edit)
Talking like mouse will not help your case.
I was a stateside intelligence analyst in the Army during the first DS. What were you doing for the Army?
You harp on human rights when it suits, then abandon it when not, not unlike our own government.
I don't find the WMD allegations and human rights violation to have been worth the trillions of dollars spent.
Anything else?
Good ole fashion American Imperialism....
David Harvey (born 31 October 1935, Gillingham, Kent, England) is the Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). He received his PhD in Geography from University of Cambridge in 1961. He is among the top 20 most cited authors in the humanities.[1] He is a leading proponent of the idea of The Right to the City.David Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism due to geographical distinctions as well as uneven levels of development.[31] He says there has emerged three new global economic and politics blocs: the United States, the European Union, and East Asia centered around China and Japan.[32] He says there are tensions between the three major blocs over resources and economic power, citing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whose goal was to prevent rivals from controlling oil.[33] Furthermore, Harvey argues there can arise conflict within the major blocs between capitalists and politicians due to their opposing economic interests.[34] Politicians, on the other hand, live in geographically fixed locations and are, in the U.S. and Europe, accountable to the electorate. The 'new' imperialism, then, has led to an alignment of the interests of capitalists and politicians in order to prevent the rise and expansion of possible economic and political rivals from challenging America's dominance
He had what? There were no WMD in Iraq.
You want WMD in Iraq you shoulda hit the men's room right after Saddam during a presidential feast... BADABING!
And yes, that's the level of response this stupid thread deserves
This ruins the whole thread.
If Iraq had WMDs, Bush and his gang of neocons would have used them as their main justification for invading Iraq.
^
That he had what? Small amounts of expired mus gas?
You're an idiot.
You don't even know what an original thought is. You gave us sales material from a gas boiler manufacturer in a discussion on climate.
What about the mul ude of conditions we struck up with Saddam back then for the cease fire? I say cease fire, because we never officially declared an end to the war.
I was at the net control station of a nuclear theater communications site for NATO, JCS, and USEUCOM.
Saddam kept violating the conditions of our withdraw and continues attacking his own people.
No, those were the reasons that were popular. they were not alone.
Do you realize the extent of the WMD that Saddam failed to account for? He agrees to the conditions set out by UN resolutions, and violates them. There was every reason in the world to believe he still had substantial WMD.
He continues, over and over, to violate the No Fly zones. He previously attacked a neighboring country.
What I already mentioned above, and more I would have to look up to account well. We have discussed these issues in the past, and I see little point in saying things over and over again that go in one ear and out the other.
Then you know several reasons. Why do you support Libya and not Iraq?
Are you saying Saddam treated Iraqis better than Qaddafi treated Libyans? I think not.
I don't like the price tag either. But once we started, I don't think it proper to run away with tails tucked. Is that what you do? Maybe you would have approved of another Viet Nam.
Why is Vietnam no longer an enemy?I don't like the price tag either. But once we started, I don't think it proper to run away with tails tucked. Is that what you do? Maybe you would have approved of another Viet Nam.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions