Sarah Palin joins Fox News

[Walsingham]

Taking a step backl, all this discussion has proven so far is that the US newsmedia is tribal like an array of witchdoctors.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So did basically all of the Middle Eastern goverments. You know it was a bogus claim and that the real reason is most likely something else entirely, this was just a good time to execute the attack on Iraq and make it seem legit.

So that's an excuse? Everyone else is doing it? I think I just proved the claim was not bogus, but I agree the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to remake the Middle East, it wasn't just about Saddam and his malfeasance.

[Lare Kikkeli]

So did basically all of the Middle Eastern goverments. You know it was a bogus claim and that the real reason is most likely something else entirely, this was just a good time to execute the attack on Iraq and make it seem legit.

So that's an excuse? Everyone else is doing it? I think I just proved the claim was not bogus, but I agree the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to remake the Middle East, it wasn't just about Saddam and his malfeasance.

 

of course saddam was suppying different militant muslim organizations in the middle east, thats a given. just like the us does in both the middle east and other parts of the world. however iraq was in no way directly involved in 9/11, unlike the bush regime claimed and unlike sarah palin apparently believed. i also believe claims of saddam having wmd's was a big reason why he needed to be attacked. which turned up bogus.

 

what the hell are you arguing about anyway?

[Volourn]

"i also believe claims of saddam having wmd's was a big reason why he needed to be attacked. which turned up bogus."

 

Now, you are the one being ignorant. It was a fact that Iraq had WMDs. This is undisputable. The dispute is whether or not he destroyed them all when they claimed to. Since, in this case, he couldn't prove that WMDs that 100% Iraq was known to have were actually destroyed. They simply vanished. He constantly broke the agreement Iraq made when they surrendered.

 

So.. where did all those WMDs go, huh? The boogie man? Not to mention Saddam had every inteiton to make more WMDs, and they even had various materials and plans lined up. Sorry, argue all you want, but whether or not Saddam had any direct ties with 9/11 ( he had none) doesn't mean he didn't have ties with AQ or had access to WMD which, bt UN LAW (lol, what a joke!), he shouldn't have.

 

Stop defending Hussein like he was some poor innocent victimized accused. He was anything but.

[Lare Kikkeli]

"i also believe claims of saddam having wmd's was a big reason why he needed to be attacked. which turned up bogus."

 

Now, you are the one being ignorant. It was a fact that Iraq had WMDs. This is undisputable. The dispute is whether or not he destroyed them all when they claimed to. Since, in this case, he couldn't prove that WMDs that 100% Iraq was known to have were actually destroyed. They simply vanished. He constantly broke the agreement Iraq made when they surrendered.

100% sure huh? Alright, please link some evidence of that. The way I remember no WMD's were ever found, nor any facilities where they could have been manufactured. Please, prove me wrong.

 

So.. where did all those WMDs go, huh? The boogie man? Not to mention Saddam had every inteiton to make more WMDs, and they even had various materials and plans lined up. Sorry, argue all you want, but whether or not Saddam had any direct ties with 9/11 ( he had none) doesn't mean he didn't have ties with AQ or had access to WMD which, bt UN LAW (lol, what a joke!), he shouldn't have.

Proof of this? You can't know what his intentions were. I'm sure he was up to no good and basically every dictator in the world wants WMD's of some kind. That still doesn't mean Saddam had any, or had any realistic chance of getting any.

 

Also the UN decided against the attack but the US did it anyway. Truly, what a joke.

 

Stop defending Hussein like he was some poor innocent victimized accused. He was anything but.

 

I believe Saddam deserved to get overthrown and even die, the same way I believe Bush deserved to get overthrown. That still doesn't change the fact that the Bush regime lied to everyone to get a casus belli on Iraq.

[Trenitay]

Why did Bush need to get overthrown? He wasn't very good but that doesn't mean there needs to be a riot against him.

[Volourn]

"100% sure huh? Alright, please link some evidence of that. "

 

When Iraq surrendered after the First Gulf War they gave the allies/UN a list of their WMD, and they were supposed to then prove they had destroyed. While they did this, many of their supposed WMD were never shiown to be destoryed.

 

"The way I remember no WMD's were ever found, nor any facilities where they could have been manufactured. Please, prove me wrong."

 

You remember wrong. It also depends on what you mean by WMD. Prove me wrong. I don't feel the need to 'prove' anything to you as it gets me nothing.

 

 

"Proof of this? You can't know what his intentions were. I'm sure he was up to no good and basically every dictator in the world wants WMD's of some kind."

 

Sure, we do. His udnerlings, his own writings, his own history, it all reeks of a guy who have every intention to pursue WMDs or anything that could help him keep power.

 

" That still doesn't mean Saddam had any, or had any realistic chance of getting any."

 

This is uptodate.

 

 

 

"Also the UN decided against the attack but the US did it anyway. Truly, what a joke."

 

The US followed the UN's own Resolutions which called for harsh measures if Saddam didn't cooperate as the deal was. The UN just didn't have the ballz to follow through (plus, they were handicapped by countries like France who had oil deals with Saddam, lol).

 

And, oh, btw, it wasn't just the US. Upwards of 50 countries were part of that war. So, don't make it sound like the US acted solo (even if they led the way and easily had the most numbers). This was NOT the same as Iraq attacking Kuwait.

 

The UN is a joke that doesn't even follow through on their own Resolutions which is why the UN can't be trusted to be some 'world police'. resolutions are useless if you won't enforce them.

 

 

"still doesn't change the fact that the Bush regime lied to everyone to get a casus belli on Iraq."

 

Nope.

 

Bush never actually cvlaimed that Iraq did 9/11.

 

He did claim, truthfully, however that:

 

- Iraq had unacounted for WMD. fact

 

- Had ties with known terrorist groups INCLUDING AQ FACT

 

- Paid suicide bombers' families as a ward for doing so

 

- Had every intention in targeting US interests

 

- Was a threat to US allies including the Kurds, Isreal, and Kuwait

 

- Kept breaking multiple UN Resolutions like intervering with Kurdish governing themselves, no fly zone, pocketing money from the oikl for food program meant for civilians, and the list goes.

 

- His mass murdering of fellow Iraqis is an affront to any dcent moral person, and such inhumane garbage shouldn't be tolerated if at all possible.

 

 

 

That all said, I do agree that ultimiately the decision to take Saddam out had to do with self interest but that's ALWAYS true. Thaqt doesn't make it the less right thing to do.

 

Then again, anti Bush people would have you believe that Bush was a dicator destined to mass murder Amerikans, bomb Iran to the stone age, nuke North Korea, and find away to keep himself in power as Presdient for Life. L0LZ

[Killian Kalthorne]

Saddam was no threat to US citizens on US soil. He was contained. Invading Iraq was a waste of lives and resources. The only people he was a threat to were Iraqis.

[Volourn]

Good enough reason to get rid of him for non bigots. The same way I would help a stranger who wa sbeing mugged even thoguh the mugger may be no threat to me. R00fles!

[Pidesco]

Good enough reason to get rid of him for non bigots. The same way I would help a stranger who wa sbeing mugged even thoguh the mugger may be no threat to me. R00fles!

 

Tthat wasn't why the US attacked, and even if it happened to be, it's not like the Iraqis were rolling out the red carpet in welcome.

 

Besides, if Bush's governemt really wanted to get rid of dictators, they would be invading half the known world, starting with Saudi Arabia.

[Lare Kikkeli]

alright so let me get this straight...no WMD's were found in Iraq, yet they must exist because there's no proof they were destroyed.. Nice logic.

 

You think anti-american rhetoric is reason enough to attack a country.

 

There were about 20 countries involved in the Iraq war, most of which are also in NATO. Big surprise they decided to aid the US?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...t_coalition.htm

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/09/14/h...ops-in-iraq.htm

 

Also most countries went into the war thinking Saddam was an actual threat, because of the claims he might have been directly involved in 9/11 and that he had WMD's, both of which proved to be false.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...nge-inspections

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-from-Iran.html

[Walsingham]

alright so let me get this straight...no WMD's were found in Iraq, yet they must exist because there's no proof they were destroyed.. Nice logic.

 

*sigh*

 

I suppose you think people cease to exist every time they leave the room?

[Volourn]

"Besides, if Bush's governemt really wanted to get rid of dictators, they would be invading half the known world, starting with Saudi Arabia."

 

Don't be silly. You can't do too much or else you'll end up not accomplishing anything.

 

This is why, while I'd love to personally free evry slave in the world, I can't do it. *shrug*

 

Gots to know your limitations.

 

 

"Tthat wasn't why the US attacked,"

 

Never claimed it was even close to the main reason.

 

 

" and even if it happened to be, it's not like the Iraqis were rolling out the red carpet in welcome."

 

They weren't exactly crying about Hussein's removal, either. Plus, they remember the Gw WILL us, and the UN left them to rot.

 

 

"alright so let me get this straight...no WMD's were found in Iraq, yet they must exist because there's no proof they were destroyed.. Nice logic."

 

You have poor logic. We know by Hussein's own words that Iraq had x amount of WMDs. They were to destroy them and show proof that that it was done. They didn't do this. Are we supposed to take his word for it? LMAO He was a criminal who was proven guilty and consented to the Resolutions.

 

Bottom line is Iraq had a lot of unaccounted for WMD. This is a FACT.

 

 

"Also most countries went into the war thinking Saddam was an actual threat, because of the claims he might have been directly involved in 9/11 and that he had WMD's, both of which proved to be false."

 

What a bunch of balony.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Volourn

[Killian Kalthorne]

Good enough reason to get rid of him for non bigots. The same way I would help a stranger who wa sbeing mugged even thoguh the mugger may be no threat to me. R00fles!

 

Sorry, I disagree. The whole world would be better off if everyone minded their own damn business. We had no business to goto Iraq. The US government needs to mind its own store, as should every other nation in this world.

[Volourn]

I'll remember that if I see you being raped in an alley. I'll mind my own business as a courtesy to you.

[Lare Kikkeli]

alright so let me get this straight...no WMD's were found in Iraq, yet they must exist because there's no proof they were destroyed.. Nice logic.

 

*sigh*

 

I suppose you think people cease to exist every time they leave the room?

 

no, but if a person exists a room and thousands of men search for him for a year with no success it's reasonable to assume that person might be dead. stupid analogy anyway.

 

You have poor logic. We know by Hussein's own words that Iraq had x amount of WMDs. They were to destroy them and show proof that that it was done. They didn't do this. Are we supposed to take his word for it? LMAO He was a criminal who was proven guilty and consented to the Resolutions.

 

How do you know he was telling the truth about the number of WMD's he had? You obviously choose not to believe him when he said that he doesn't have any. Here's some interesting thing he said:

 

Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran.

 

The late Iraqi dictator also told his interrogators that he regarded Osama in Laden as a "zealot" and had no contact with the al-Qaeda leader or his organisation.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-from-Iran.html

 

The transcripts, released under a freedom of information request, both undermined the Bush case for war, which was based on the threat of WMD and alleged Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, and underlined the absurd length of Saddam's desire to convince the world that he held WMD.

 

In the wake of the March 2003 invasion, no such weapons have ever found and before leaving office in January Mr Bush himself acknowledged that "most of the intelligence turned out to be wrong".

 

Bottom line is Iraq had a lot of unaccounted for WMD. This is a FACT.

 

There's only one fact known: no WMD's or facilities capable of manufacturing them were found.

 

What a bunch of balony.

 

It's reasonable to assume they didn't tell all of their allies their true intentions or reasons if the VP candidate of the GOP didn't know them. Or maybe Palins just an idiot.

 

Also you've made these claims yet offered no proof, no article or source that supports them. Your credibility is wearing thin if it even existed. I've already caught you of hyperbole on the number of countries that were involved in the war. Unless you have some sources where you base those FACTS you're so eager to throw around I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

[Calax]

Except it seems like they dont' want us there volo... and usually people don't have good memories of the fat guy who came over, and then ate your food and destroyed your house after he kicked the naughty dog in the teeth.

[Volourn]

"Also you've made these claims yet offered no proof, no article or source that supports them."

 

Why should I/ I doin't need to prove anything to you. Your links are useless garbage anyways. You are so biased, you would make stuff up anyways ala 'Hussein is trustworthy because he was lying'. LMAO

 

Your latest links about Hussein just proves my point further. He couldn't be trusted. He was too busy playing games to be left in power. The fact that he made a habit of lying is just another mark on him.

 

And, no, way more than 20 countries were involved. Still, even with 'just' 20, it shows it wans't just the US. Nor does it matter what motivation the various countries had either. All countries act in self interest. Duh.

 

 

"Except it seems like they dont' want us there volo... and usually people don't have good memories of the fat guy who came over, and then ate your food and destroyed your house after he kicked the naughty dog in the teeth."

 

Only if you simplify things. Iraqis feelings on the whole issue are rather complex, and not one sided either way. It depends which factions you are referring to. It should be noted that most polls showed thatIraqis supported the war more than most non American countries did, and way more than their fellow Muslim countries. That says a lot. Of course, they certainly dissaproved of how the post war was handled (as do I since it was severely mishandled).

 

It should be noted, btw, that most polls show that the majority of Iraqis believe they are better off post war than pre war.

 

To add complexities as well there's the three different fnctions that play a part. And, thjere's even more factions as well within those.

 

Bottom line, as above, Iraqis feelings on the whole issue are not simple or easy to just colour code either way. Afterall, NOBODY likes to be bombed for ANY reason.

[Lare Kikkeli]

"Also you've made these claims yet offered no proof, no article or source that supports them."

 

Why should I/ I doin't need to prove anything to you. Your links are useless garbage anyways. You are so biased, you would make stuff up anyways ala 'Hussein is trustworthy because he was lying'. LMAO

Stop making silly claims that I can refute with a lazy google search then.

 

Your latest links about Hussein just proves my point further. He couldn't be trusted. He was too busy playing games to be left in power. The fact that he made a habit of lying is just another mark on him.

My link says, with the information coming from the US goverment and president Bush, that Saddam didn't have any WMD's and that he was lying to intimidate Iran. But I bet your crystal ball tells you otherwise, huh.

 

And, no, way more than 20 countries were involved.

Proof of that please.

 

Still, even with 'just' 20, it shows it wans't just the US. Nor does it matter what motivation the various countries had either. All countries act in self interest. Duh.

Most of the countries involved are also in NATO, and most likely had the choice of either getting kicked out or assisting in the war. Not to mention they were probably supplied with falsified information to begin with.

 

I can see you're dropping most of your more absurd claims and sticking the less silly ones that you think I can't prove wrong. You seem to think the war was a good thing. Fine, maybe the end justified the means in this case. Russia did the same in Georgia, do you think that was ok? Would you think it was ok for Russia to invade, aka free the baltic? What about the US doing that to South America?

 

 

hahaha also what polls have you been reading volourn?

 

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

 

here's some of the highlights, taken from different polls:

Approximately 10% of Soldiers and Marines report mistreating non-combatants (damaged/destroyed Iraqi property when not necessary or hit/kicked a non-combatant when not necessary

 

95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces

 

53% of Iraqis think economic conditions are poor. 76% think security conditions are poor

62% say Iraq is heading in the wrong direction; 30% say it is heading in the right direction

 

"up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country."

Edited January 14, 2010 by Lare Kikkeli

[Rostere]

Regarding the WMDs, I'd say the most important factor was that the weapons inspection authorities did not believe there were any, and what makes the war even more stupid is that they were currently investigating the matter before the war. If the US does indeed have some kind of intelligence agency they have proven their gross incompetence to the world so many times it's really laughable. I'd honestly really rather believe that the American leadership knew for sure there were no WMDs in Iraq.

 

Oh, I definitely thought Saddam should have been overthrown, but the right way to do it for the US is hardly to storm in and shoot everyone. Especially considering the cultural differences. In this day and age, violence is a blunt, primitive and inefficient tool for the weak of mind. Look at the astronomical amount of money the war has cost the US. Just imagine how you could have used that money to create a more stable Middle East and improve mutual relations instead of making war. I dare not even think of the cost the Iraqis have to pay now for rebuilding their country.

[taks]

I'd honestly really rather believe that the American leadership knew for sure there were no WMDs in Iraq.

that statement says it all... you'd rather believe, wouldn't you? hmmm, d'ya think maybe that sort of sets a pre-conceived notion in your head that such a thing was true? i'll give you a hint at what that means... no, wait, the direct approach: bias.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

For me, the proof that Iraq had no WMDs is when we invaded. If Saddam had WMDs when we invaded he would have used them. He has used such weapons in the past against his own people so it stands to reason that he would use such weapons against an invading army.

[Hiro Protagonist]

North Korea does the same to their people with chemical weapons and they have WMD's.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071466/

[Killian Kalthorne]

If WMDs was Bush's primary worry he would have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq.

[Lare Kikkeli]

For me, the proof that Iraq had no WMDs is when we invaded. If Saddam had WMDs when we invaded he would have used them. He has used such weapons in the past against his own people so it stands to reason that he would use such weapons against an invading army.

 

Good point, althought it's hardly proof they didn't exist. According to Volourn not only did he not use the WMDs he had against an overwhelmingly superior invading force while having nothing to lose he hid them so well that no trace of them was found.

 

I'm sure they're still there somewhere...

 

A melancholy melody in the desert. A battered old ice cream truck drives from dune to dune. An old man driving, a sad character dressed in a tattered military uniform. Now and then he checks his rear view mirror for any pursuit, knowing there is none. He drives, because he's a man of God and Country. He drives.