NationStates Jolt Archive

MIAMI - Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, who found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991, justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war. The report shows that "delay, defer, wasn't an option," Cheney told a town-hall style meeting. -Yahoo News, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_el_pr/cheney

The final report released to Congress yesterday says that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction prior to invasion of Iraq. Period. Top Administration officials such as Secrteary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have admitted in public that there are no connections between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. As the days tick by, the rationales for Bush's war in Iraq melt away like butter. About the only rationale left is that Saddam Hussein was a potential threat.

Sic, potential threat. I can think of many other nations that are a "potential threat". Are we going to invade all of them? What about priority, Mr. President?! If Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat, he did not deserve our immediate attention. Where is Osama Bin Laden, Mr. President? I saw your performance in the last debate, where you promised to crush the Iraqi Insurgency and Al-Qaida. WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE IT YET?

I ask my fellow Americans on this forum: If Saddam Hussein had no weapons on mass destruction, no programs to produce them, and was not cooperating with Al-Qaida, WHY did we invade him? Hussein was an evil man...of that there can be no doubt. But with his military rusting away from sanctions, his programs dismantled there were better and more pressing targets to consider, like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. George W. Bush has led us to disaster in the War on Terror, wasting troops and money needed to crush the terrorists elsewhere. It's time for a change. It's time for Truth.

At least one reason remains that was given at the start.
Premier Blair told the UK that Saddam had WMD's and so we had to start them.
Then none turned up so it was 'evidence of WMD's'.
Then none turned up so it was 'evidence of programs for WMD's'.
Then none turned up so he told the UK it he didn't lie because Saddam 'May have been considering producing them'.

Even I have considered trying to make one, doesn't mean I actually will.
ARGH! NEW LABOUR THOUGHT POLICE ARE AFTER ME!

For a dictatorship like Saddam Hussein's, he kept remarkably good records of what he did and did not do. He even kept track of the thousands of people he had executed. If we found not a shred of evidence supporting WMD production, development, or research I think it is safe to say he did not have them.

Maybe have considered? I assure you he WANTED WMDs. But that's not the point. We could have controlled him with sanctions for a FRACTION of the cost that we spent on the War, and continue to spend. I quote one of my posts on another thread:

This all sidesteps the true importance of this report. Saddam Hussein was not an IMMEDIATE threat. All the United States needed to do was reinforce sanctions, and we could have kept Saddam Hussein strangled with a political (and relatively low-cost) leash.

Instead, Mr. Bush has involved us in a war that has cost $120 billion dollars and over 1,050 American lives. That money and those soldiers could have been applied to other theatres in the War on Terror. Wasted. Now we stand on the brink in Afghanistan....the Taliban is making a comeback. Just yesterday the Vice President of Afghanistan was almost killed with an explosive device. I blame George W. Bush for the situation, because the war in Iraq diverted our strength and attention from Afghanistan at a crucial moment during the reconstruction there.

This does not even start to count the political damage. American credibility has been ruined. Back during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the word of the American President was enough to spur the world to action. Now the rest of the world has turned its' back on us. George Bush does not have the skill, political capital, goodwill, or credibility to lead the War on Terror any more. If America wants to try and repair this breach, I suggest that new leadership is required.

Kerry-Edwards 2004
Shalrirorchia

OK.

Guess what?

This issue has already been beaten to death by lefty activists. Both Reps. AND Dems. are tired of it. If you want to debate something, debate a current issue. Not one that has already been debated, and debated, and debated.

OK.

Guess what?

This issue has already been beaten to death by lefty activists. Both Reps. AND Dems. are tired of it. If you want to debate something, debate a current issue. Not one that has already been debated, and debated, and debated.

I am not a lefty activist. As a general rule, I am fairly right-wing - but I fundamentally disagree with Vice President Blair misleading this country. It may not be especially current, I agree, but it is important politically, given that there is an election next month in the States, and there will probably be one in the UK next year.

That said, despite the deception, both Blair and Bush will probably get back into government. I can't comment on the American stance, but here it's because people don't trust either of the either two parties, either. They may seem to have better policies, but they have yet to establish themselves as genuinely credible potential governments.

Bush shouldn't be in office anyway.

And I was always against the Iraq war, I went to the protests in London, but they didn't achive anything, it seems that Blair can just gloss over his gross failings and will probably get in office again. Personally i think Bushes next target is Iran.

Urge to light something on fire...rising...

Saddam was not actually a major threat to the U.S. he just wanted to bomb the shit out of countries in the middle east but of course thats the Americans job so he had to be taken out.

OK.

Guess what?

This issue has already been beaten to death by lefty activists. Both Reps. AND Dems. are tired of it. If you want to debate something, debate a current issue. Not one that has already been debated, and debated, and debated.

You're tired of being caught in a damned lie, I think.

It's long past time the American people held George W. Bush responsible for what he has and has NOT done. This November, they get the opportunity to do it.

The consistent US/UK policy on Iraq from the 70s to 2003 was to prevent the Iraqi people from running their own country, even if it meant keeping Saddam in power. Hence the sanctions that hurt the people and helped the dictatorship, and lack of support for the 1991 uprising against Hussein.

The US was most likely afraid of the formation of either a theocracy hostile to America (like in Iran today) or a socialist state which would nationalise the oil industry (like in Iran pre-1953).

To see how the Republicans have lied about Kerry's supposed flip-flop on the Iraq war, go here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

I wrote factcheck.org to see if they would report on it.

To see how the Republicans have lied about Kerry's supposed flip-flop on the Iraq war, go here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

I wrote factcheck.org to see if they would report on it.

Cool, so fact check takes requests?

Cool, so fact check takes requests?

I don't know if they actually take requests, but they do have an email address under "Contact us," that I sent an email to on that topic. I dunno if they'll run with it, or if it'll get lost in the pile or what.

The final report released to Congress yesterday says that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction prior to invasion of Iraq. Period. Top Administration officials such as Secrteary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have admitted in public that there are no connections between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. As the days tick by, the rationales for Bush's war in Iraq melt away like butter. About the only rationale left is that Saddam Hussein was a potential threat.

Sic, potential threat. I can think of many other nations that are a "potential threat". Are we going to invade all of them? What about priority, Mr. President?! If Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat, he did not deserve our immediate attention. Where is Osama Bin Laden, Mr. President? I saw your performance in the last debate, where you promised to crush the Iraqi Insurgency and Al-Qaida. WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE IT YET?

I ask my fellow Americans on this forum: If Saddam Hussein had no weapons on mass destruction, no programs to produce them, and was not cooperating with Al-Qaida, WHY did we invade him? Hussein was an evil man...of that there can be no doubt. But with his military rusting away from sanctions, his programs dismantled there were better and more pressing targets to consider, like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. George W. Bush has led us to disaster in the War on Terror, wasting troops and money needed to crush the terrorists elsewhere. It's time for a change. It's time for Truth.

DISCLAIMER: This message was approved, and dictated by, the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

DISCLAIMER: This message was approved, and dictated by, the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

Wow, the Kerry/Edwards campaign runs the entire Congress? They're better than I thought. I guess we better all vote for them then, since they are so good at getting bi-partisan support.

Wow, the Kerry/Edwards campaign runs the entire Congress? They're better than I thought. I guess we better all vote for them then, since they are so good at getting bi-partisan support.

Nope. You missed the entire point of the post. I wasn't referring to the issue of congress....but to the commentary. The commentary sounded like a sound bite for Kerry/Edwards.

It....was....a....joke....

simmer down, there... :p

Nope. You missed the entire point of the post. I wasn't referring to the issue of congress....but to the commentary. The commentary sounded like a sound bite for Kerry/Edwards.

It....was....a....joke....

simmer down, there... :p

and my post was a humorous attempt to respond. Simmer down, thyself!


:D

Nope. You missed the entire point of the post. I wasn't referring to the issue of congress....but to the commentary. The commentary sounded like a sound bite for Kerry/Edwards.

It....was....a....joke....

simmer down, there... :p

Don't worry too much about Gymoor and ChessSquares. Just mention a phrase they like, such as "Yes, I voted for the bill ... before I voted against it." When they start fomaing at the mouth and biting ankles, throw them a bone or a piece of raw meat. They'll fight over it and leave you alone. Besides, they were abused as small children and are deserving of pity. ;)

and my post was a humorous attempt to respond. Simmer down, thyself!


:D

I know...consider myself simmered...I was hoping to incite a riot.

i am so tired of all these posts its a bunch of closed minded people on both sides shutting their minds to everything except waht they wanna believe...so why put my opinion here ..if god himself told you people something that didn't fit your partisan views you would call him a liar..shut up you are all whiners..thanx have a nice life

Don't worry too much about Gymoor and ChessSquares. Just mention a phrase they like, such as "Yes, I voted for the bill ... before I voted against it." When they start fomaing at the mouth and biting ankles, throw them a bone or a piece of raw meat. They'll fight over it and leave you alone. Besides, they were abused as small children and are deserving of pity. ;)

*wipes hysterical foam from his mouth.

I dunno Eutrusca, I'm not the one who posts pictures of dead children in order to further proven falsehoods. As for pity, I only use that when I'm wooing a woman who is clearly out of my league...not that there are many of those around. :D

i am so tired of all these posts its a bunch of closed minded people on both sides shutting their minds to everything except waht they wanna believe...so why put my opinion here ..if god himself told you people something that didn't fit your partisan views you would call him a liar..shut up you are all whiners..thanx have a nice life

I'm trying to figure out if this person whining about whining is making a joke or not. I also wonder, if he hates being here so much and questions why he should even post his opinions, why he is here posting his opinions?

It's really funny if it's irony. Kinda sad if it's not.

*wipes hysterical foam from his mouth.

I dunno Eutrusca, I'm not the one who posts pictures of dead children in order to further proven falsehoods. As for pity, I only use that when I'm wooing a woman who is clearly out of my league...not that there are many of those around. :D

What's wrong Eutrusca? Too busy reading "Propaganda For Dummies" to respond?

To see how the Republicans have lied about Kerry's supposed flip-flop on the Iraq war, go here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

I wrote factcheck.org to see if they would report on it.
You rock!

What's wrong Eutrusca? Too busy reading "Propaganda For Dummies" to respond?
Maybe like many similar posts from the rightwingers, Eutrusca won't even bother to read "Propaganda For Dummies" but has instead acquired the Cliff's Notes for it, thus only taking talking points and presenting them out of context of fact or circumstance. Or maybe they already feel natural in the propagandist/dummy environment and remain intent to bask in it.

Now the only thing backing the war is that they removed a 'bad man'. If the US plans to spend billions upon billions of $$, 1000+ of their own troops lives and 10s of thousands of locals lives to do it then they're going to have problems...