NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE-Most of this is conspiracy, assumptions, and may not be true at all...Enjoy!
1) In the cases of the Pearl Harbor raid and 9/11, an attack was expected. It was somewhat encouraged with Pearl Harbor by FDR. The catastrophic damage was not expected, though. I believe that the United States could not have waited for an almost certain attack by their great enemy of Iraq. This attack would be extremely catastrophic.
2) The Democrats now say that there were no WMDs found. It was, however, proved that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium from an African country (Lybia, I believe). Secondly, the government surely would rather be wrong and safe, than right and without action.
3) Related to the second statement, Iraq did have WMDs in the Gulf War (the first I believe [Iraq/Iran]). They did not, however, report that their weapons were disarmed.
4) The Iraqi "government" was the same type of an extremist group as the Taliban. Of course this organization was led by Osama bin Laden and were the cause of the 9/11 attacks. This means that they had the capability to unleash an attack with the same caliber as 9/11.

Thoughts?

None of your premises is founded in fact. I'd suggest you do some more research and try again.

None of your premises is founded in fact. I'd suggest you do some more research and try again.
I agree with the former, but not the latter suggestion. We've had enough of this debate. So, do more research but don't try again.

here're some good places to start:
http://costofwar.com/
http://iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.terrorready.net/index.asp

I didn't believe that my reader's warning was that easy to miss. Please look for it.

Thoughts?

I think that:

1) Saddam at no time killed, attempted to kill, or even threatened to kill an American-born civilian. So how was Iraq a threat to the US?

2) Saddam never tried to get Uranium from Africa. Bush has admitted this.

3) The chemical weapons used by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war had a shelf life of 6 months. So unless Iraq was still making them 6 months before we invaded, they had none.

4) The Iraqi government was about as close to Taliban-style as the Soviet Union was. I believe you're thinking of IRAN. An honest mistake so I'll brush it aside.


My main question though is: If you yourself admit that your take on this is based on falsehoods, why haven't you tried to figure out the truth yet? These are simple things that you can inquire about at factcheck.org so it's not hard to get your facts straight.

...

1) Saddam at no time killed, attempted to kill, or even threatened to kill an American-born civilian. So how was Iraq a threat to the US?

...
Was Iraq linked with an assassination attempt on George HW Bush in 1993? I honestly don't remember whether Iraqi involvement was proven or not.

NOTE-Most of this is conspiracy, assumptions, and may not be true at all...Enjoy!
1) In the cases of the Pearl Harbor raid and 9/11, an attack was expected. It was somewhat encouraged with Pearl Harbor by FDR. The catastrophic damage was not expected, though. I believe that the United States could not have waited for an almost certain attack by their great enemy of Iraq. This attack would be extremely catastrophic.

In the case of Pearl Habor (ick - crummy spelling) and 9/11, a counterattack is perfectly justifiable. However, without reason, Iraq was wantonly attacked by the US without having attacked the US first.

2) The Democrats now say that there were no WMDs found. It was, however, proved that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium from an African country (Lybia, I believe). Secondly, the government surely would rather be wrong and safe, than right and without action.

So, because he tried to buy uranium (not even nuclear war heads, but unrefined uraniu), it is enough to have gone to war with Iraq?

And yes, there are WMD now, and they're called terrorists. They only came AFTER the Americans came to "liberate" Iraq. :rolleyes:


3) Related to the second statement, Iraq did have WMDs in the Gulf War (the first I believe [Iraq/Iran]). They did not, however, report that their weapons were disarmed.

Ok, so, if they had them then, why didn't Daddy Bush decide to finish it off? They had driven back Hussein and Kuwait was free to produce oil again, enough for America and its allies.

And if they really did have such capacities, they would have likely used them on the invading American and British forces without a second thought of remorse as they blow the invading aliens to itty-bitty clunks of scorched flesh and blood.

4) The Iraqi "government" was the same type of an extremist group as the Taliban. Of course this organization was led by Osama bin Laden and were the cause of the 9/11 attacks. This means that they had the capability to unleash an attack with the same caliber as 9/11.

Iraq is quite secular, or used to be until the Yanks stuck their noses in where they weren't welcome. To say they were extremist is like saying that Canada is filled with a bunch of j-smoking, granola-munching baref-oot hippies living in igloos... :p

It was been shown that Hussein and bin Laden were on opposite sides. I fail to see how a secular nation could be "extremist".

Was Iraq linked with an assassination attempt on George HW Bush in 1993? I honestly don't remember whether Iraqi involvement was proven or not.
Saddam did indeed try to kill Poppy Bush, and at one point, that was Bush's justification for invading Iraq. But other than that, Saddam didn't threaten American civilian lives in any way.

"After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."
-- So that's why Dubya wanted to send in the troops, Houston, Texas, Sep. 26, 2002

NOTE-Most of this is conspiracy, assumptions, and may not be true at all...Enjoy!
1) In the cases of the Pearl Harbor raid and 9/11, an attack was expected. It was somewhat encouraged with Pearl Harbor by FDR. The catastrophic damage was not expected, though. I believe that the United States could not have waited for an almost certain attack by their great enemy of Iraq. This attack would be extremely catastrophic.
True about FDR. He was a hawk. However, I highly doubt that Saddam would ever have the balls to directly attack the US.
2) The Democrats now say that there were no WMDs found. It was, however, proved that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium from an African country (Lybia, I believe). Secondly, the government surely would rather be wrong and safe, than right and without action.
Which is why I have always supported, quick, non-committal bombardments and strikes on sights believed to contain WMDs.
3) Related to the second statement, Iraq did have WMDs in the Gulf War (the first I believe [Iraq/Iran]). They did not, however, report that their weapons were disarmed.
They reported them, I believe. Whether it was completely trustworthy, I don’t know.
4) The Iraqi "government" was the same type of an extremist group as the Taliban. Of course this organization was led by Osama bin Laden and were the cause of the 9/11 attacks. This means that they had the capability to unleash an attack with the same caliber as 9/11.
Saddam was a secular ruler out for himself, not Islam. Some have said he funded Palestinian terror. I say, tuff. Let the Israelis deal with it themselves. That may sound harsh, but I see no reason to get involved.

NOTE-Most of this is conspiracy, assumptions, and may not be true at all...Enjoy!
1) In the cases of the Pearl Harbor raid and 9/11, an attack was expected. It was somewhat encouraged with Pearl Harbor by FDR. The catastrophic damage was not expected, though. I believe that the United States could not have waited for an almost certain attack by their great enemy of Iraq. This attack would be extremely catastrophic.
2) The Democrats now say that there were no WMDs found. It was, however, proved that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium from an African country (Lybia, I believe). Secondly, the government surely would rather be wrong and safe, than right and without action.
3) Related to the second statement, Iraq did have WMDs in the Gulf War (the first I believe [Iraq/Iran]). They did not, however, report that their weapons were disarmed.
4) The Iraqi "government" was the same type of an extremist group as the Taliban. Of course this organization was led by Osama bin Laden and were the cause of the 9/11 attacks. This means that they had the capability to unleash an attack with the same caliber as 9/11.

Thoughts?

None of these are facts. The things you said that are not simply untrue are highly subjective and overused conservative talking points. Next time you want to regurgitate what your leaders spoon feed you, have the decency to not pollute the internet with it.

If you want to justify war, do it wit6h fact rather then what you have admitted are just conspiracy theorys which are almost never right. SO rather then believeing the propaganda of Bush, try reality, I visit it some times, it really is nice!

I think that:

4) The Iraqi government was about as close to Taliban-style as the Soviet Union was. I believe you're thinking of IRAN. An honest mistake so I'll brush it aside.


LOL.

Iran and taliban were sworn enemies. Iranian governtment was totally opposed to the Taliban, since taliban were wahabbi/sunni and massacred shias of Afghanistan (mainly in Herat, I think). Iran being the only shia majority country in the world, it has assumed the leadership of the shia community.

Iran was the conduit of Indian covert support to anti-taliban NA commander Ahmed Shah Masood after Taliban capture power. Iran actually welcomed the US removal of Taliban from Afghanistan. US did a favor to Iran by that and by installing a government which has strong farsi representation who favor Iran.

US did an even bigger favor to Iran by deposing anti-Iran Saddam in Iraq and restored pro-Iran shiite leadership in govt. One would think that US and Iran are working in tandem, if you take away the media pronoucements ;)

This Pearl Harbor thing is such crap. Sure, all of the pieces were there, but no one had them put together.

1.) It was not yet known that the Battleship would take a secondary role to the aircraft carrier. Purposefully allowing 9 battlewagons to be destroyed/ damaged is just moronic, period.
2.) The same results (getting the U.S. into the war) could have been achieved by putting everyone on alert, having fighters up, and turning the Japanese attack into a big ambush. Cruisers, battleships, carriers, subs and destroyers at sea, and nail the enemy fleet to the wall while most planes are away.
3.) Allowing Pearl to be messed up did not help the U.S. war effort.

So, logically, it is a load of crap. Stop perpetuating such ridiculous notions.

Well we are up to our necks in it now and 24,000 civilians have been killed and there will be alot more so I think that arguing for or against the war isn't going to change what has happened. We should look to the future and make sure that we leave Iraq in a better state

OK, fine. I'll take my ideas elsewhere. I should have known better than to fire up a bunch of Liberals. But I still believe that it is Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's fault for these extremists. They should have nipped it in the bud.

OK, fine. I'll take my ideas elsewhere. I should have known better than to fire up a bunch of Liberals. But I still believe that it is Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's fault for these extremists. They should have nipped it in the bud.

hindsight is a beautiful thing isn't it?

LOL.

Iran and taliban were sworn enemies. Iranian governtment was totally opposed to the Taliban, since taliban were wahabbi/sunni and massacred shias of Afghanistan (mainly in Herat, I think). Iran being the only shia majority country in the world, it has assumed the leadership of the shia community.

This I know.

I was referring to government type, ie Secular Dictatorship vs Fundamentalist Theocracy. In this way Iraq was like the Soviet Union and Iran was like the Taliban. Whether they got along or not is irrelevant to the comparison.

But I still believe that it is Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's fault for these extremists.
But not Reagan or Bush sr., right?

OK, fine. I'll take my ideas elsewhere. I should have known better than to fire up a bunch of Liberals. But I still believe that it is Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's fault for these extremists. They should have nipped it in the bud.

Sure is. Thats why Regan gave so much support to the Mujahadeen and the Taliban. Oh, I'm sorry, that was Clinton who did that back when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan from 1980-1989. He was only working behind the scenes, as he has been for the last two centuries, moving his brain between cloned bodies.
Fact is, American policy started those groups and supported them in order to give the Soviets a bloody nose. The world's most ruthless army was defeated in Afghanistan by these groups. In fact, GWB gave the Taliban $43 million dollars in 2001. Taliban leaders came to Texas while he was governor to talk about oil deals and American companies drilling in and piping through Afghanistan. But you are right, it isn't his fault, it is Bill Clinton's.

Please tell me that this thread was begun as an ironic commentary.

NOTE-Most of this is conspiracy, assumptions, and may not be true at all...Enjoy!
1) ...
2) ...
3) ...
4) ...

Thoughts?

1) Nope.
2) Nope.
3) Nope.
4) Nope.

Pity about the 25,000+ civilian dead on the basis of four counter-factual statements, I'm sure you'll agree.

1) Nope.
2) Nope.
3) Nope.
4) Nope.

Pity about the 25,000+ civilian dead on the basis of four counter-factual statements, I'm sure you'll agree.

24,865 by wednesday but Agreed ;)

24,865 by wednesday but Agreed ;)

24,865 in Iraq according to that report. The question is whether we should we add the death toll from the Bali (200+) and London (50+) bombings as direct results of the extremely dubious war on Iraq as direct or indirect consequences?

24,865 in Iraq according to that report. The question is whether we should we add the death toll from the Bali (200+) and London (50+) bombings as direct results of the extremely dubious war on Iraq as direct or indirect consequences?

Well I wouldn't count them because they did not happen in Iraq. Something I find worse about that figure is that 20% of those civillians were women and children

Well I wouldn't count them because they did not happen in Iraq. Something I find worse about that figure is that 20% of those civillians were women and children

Fair enough, but it seems indisputable, given current evidence, that the London bombings of two weeks ago were carried out as a result of the UK's participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Thus, to me, it seems somewhat disingenuous to discount them from the total civilian loss that the war has caused.




EDIT: Lest I get tarred as an apologist for the previous regime in Iraq, I'm not: it was vile and unpleasent, but its exact nature does not neccesarilly justify the response that the 'coalition of the willing' provided it.

If the US changed a different motive I would have agreed with the war. WMD that was non-existent? No.

NOTE-Most of this is conspiracy, assumptions, and may not be true at all...Enjoy!
1) In the cases of the Pearl Harbor raid and 9/11, an attack was expected. It was somewhat encouraged with Pearl Harbor by FDR. The catastrophic damage was not expected, though. I believe that the United States could not have waited for an almost certain attack by their great enemy of Iraq. This attack would be extremely catastrophic.
2) The Democrats now say that there were no WMDs found. It was, however, proved that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium from an African country (Lybia, I believe). Secondly, the government surely would rather be wrong and safe, than right and without action.
3) Related to the second statement, Iraq did have WMDs in the Gulf War (the first I believe [Iraq/Iran]). They did not, however, report that their weapons were disarmed.
4) The Iraqi "government" was the same type of an extremist group as the Taliban. Of course this organization was led by Osama bin Laden and were the cause of the 9/11 attacks. This means that they had the capability to unleash an attack with the same caliber as 9/11.

Thoughts?

1) what could saddam have done? the 45 min claim was bollocks, misinterpreted and used as propoganda.
2) it was unclear as to whether or not there were WMD's. the claim that there were was wrong to make. we weren't doing nothing, we kept sending weapons inspectors in, and had forces threatening for in case he did attack anywhere
3) so?
4) it was a very different type of extreme. our govs are a diff type of extreme too. there was no link with osama nd iraq, they hated eachother, iraq had no military capability to do 9/11 style attacks, and anyone could get terrorists to do them. the invasion has made iraq a breeding ground for osamas terrorists, and others besides...

Fair enough, but it seems indisputable, given current evidence, that the London bombings of two weeks ago were carried out as a result of the UK's participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Thus, to me, it seems somewhat disingenuous to discount them from the total civilian loss that the war has caused.


I see your point but I don't see a direct link between the two. The bombers were from Leeds and they were angry and they did it in the mis-guided attempt to represent Islam. AQ have bombed other countries who had nothing to do with the war eg Turkey