Cardman, we've had some good times on the Charmed board. I ignored
the first post to keep from feeding the ng trolls but as an American
Republican who sup****ts Bush I now have no choice...
>France like many UN countries saw no need for military action, when
>Iraq was in no position to be a threat to anyone.
Do you remember the Delfuer re****t? That's the re****t that was done by
the Iraq Survey Commission after the fall of Saddam. That's also the
same re****t that the liberals of the world are trumpeting as the
definitive proof of there being no WMDs in Iraq. That re****t had
another little twist to it that wasn't re****ted on much by the "elite
media" here in the states who were rooting for Kerry.
It seems as though France, Germany, and Russia (coincidentally the
parties in the Security Council that opposed US action) all had one
thing in common: they were making BILLIONS off Saddam's regime! They
were getting vouchers for millions of barrels of oil and money
siphoned off from the Oil-for-Food Program was given directly to
officials in these countries and the UN as BRIBES!
John Kerry called the coalition helping the US in Iraq a "coalition
of the bribed and the cohersed." It turns out the only ones being
bribed were the UN Security Council being bribed by Saddam Hussein!
France's inaction had nothing to do with Saddam's status as a threat.
They were looking out for their MONETARY interests!
>This War was sold to the voters as being due to Saddam having WMDs and
>thus a threat. It is clear enough to see now that this was one of
>Bush's fabrication from beginning to end.
>
>Bush promised us WMD. So where are they?
In 2002, the CIA said Iraq had WMDs. British Intelligence said Iraq
had WMDs. Russian Intelligence said Iraq had WMDs. The UN Security
Council unanimously approved resolution 1441, ordering Saddam to
dsiarm and disclose. That meant they thought Saddam was hiding
something.
But here's the trump card, Cardman!... In December 1998, President
William Jefferson Clinton ordered a week-long bombing campaign of Iraq
citing Iraq's "nuclear, chemical, and biological" weapons
capabilities! Clinton attacked Iraq citing WMDs as his reason! Did
the liberals on this planet develop amnesia!?!?!
Where was John Kerry then? Where was Howard Dean then? Where was Terry
McAuliffe then? Where was George Soros then? Where was Michael Moore
then? Where was France and Germany then? Where were YOU then?
Clinton also went into Bosnia and Serbia unilaterally when neither of
those countries were a threat to the US. Why isn't anyone on the left
calling Clinton a warmongerer?!
Funny how two presidents in less than 4 years make the EXACT SAME CASE
for Iraq's WMDs but it's treated and percieved sooooo differently
since once a Dem and one's a Republican!
The fact is that EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs and for the left to
pin the whole thing on George Bush is nothing but scapegoating and
running for cover.
>WTC 9/11 highlights that they were not looking well enough to start
>with. They were in with his organization, where this one thing took
>years of planning.
>
>They were blind enough to not see this coming, when it happened there
>once before, only highlights that they are virtually helpless
>concerning things that happen in other countries.
We had a lot of warning and you're right; it was ignored... but not
by president Bush.
Let me give you a history lesson about Al Qaeda's attacks on America
and our interests:
- 1993: WTC bombed
- 1996: Khobar Towers bombed
- 1998: American embassies in Africa bombed
- 2000: USS Cole bombed
All of these attacks went unanswered by America. Geee. who was
President during this time? I'll give you a hint: it's the same
president that had Yasser Arafat (the guy controlling the on/off
button to Hamas and Islamic Jihad) as a guest to the White House more
than any other foreign leader.
That's right, William Jefferson Clinton! You could the case that Bush
may have ignored warnings but the an was in the White House for less
than 8 months when 9/11 happened. Bill Clinton had EIGHT YEARS of
warning and did nothing!
For the liberals to hang 9/11 around Bush's neck without holding
Clinton to any level of accountability is like throwing a hotel party,
tra****ng the room and getting mad at the janitor who's cleaning the
place up for the mess!
>Therefore, these public bombings have increased directly due to Bush's
>Warmongering ways.
Bombings may have increased but not in the US. We haven't been hit in
over 3 years. You see if you'd clean out your ears once in a while
you'd know that the point of the War on Terror is to fight the
terrorists where THEY live. We're fighting them in Iraq now so we
don't have to face them here at home.
>Since both Iran and North Korea are on Bush's "axis of evil"
>(countries who don't like us) invasion list, then that is why both are
>now working on nuclear technology. And if you remove Bush's threat,
>then the reason to make nuclear bombs is now greatly reduced.
>So all he is doing is stirring up more trouble for himself.
More blaming Bush for messes that were already there.
- Iran, believe it or not, was America's ALLY in the Cold War until
Jimminy ****in Carter decided to turn his back on the Shah (who was
our friend) and the Ayatollah and radical Mullahs took over. They've
been a rogue state and sponsor of terror every since. Thank you to
the appeasing left-wing peaceniks of the world!
- North Korea: yet another failed attempt at appeasement. Do you
know where North Korea got their nuclear reactors from by chance?
I'll give you a hint: they got them from a treaty with the US in 1994.
That's right! It's Clinton again! Slick Willy and his Secretary of
State, Madeline Albright signed a non-proliferation treaty giving them
2 reactors to develop nuclear energy to give power to their people.
Kim Jong Il then decided to **** his people and turn that nuclear
capability into 3 or 4 nukes. Way to go! Good job!
>>Like I said before, some want to tie our hands behind our backs and we
just
>>sit there and get attacked.
>
>The only people that have been attacked include the US
So 200 Russian school children being mowed down, a train being bombed
in Spain, and repeated attacks on Israel don't count?
>due to their
>extremely biased and hostile view in the Middle East. No doubt the
>others are caused by local unrest.
So we get attacked, we retaliate, and WE'RE the hostiles? Do you work
for the New Tork Times by any chance?
>It would be extremely hard to believe that the likes would happen in
>places like France and Germany simply because they have not been going
>around peeing people off.
Or the fact that they're making back-alley deals with Saddam Hussein
may also have something to do with it.
>What is going on in Iraq is insurgence. The US are the invaders and
>occupiers, where an increasing number of the population are now
>fighting for their freedom.
insurgence: n : an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a
constituted government through the use of subversion and armed
conflict
What's going on in Iraq is chaos being orchestrated by people who
DON'T want a constituted government to be formed. Insurgence is
people rebelling against THEIR government. The Iraqis in the army now
fighting at the US's side against the Batthists and Saddam loyalists
are the insurgents. the guys etting off car bombs are TERRORISTS.
>I would have to seek out some latest figures, where last I heard over
>1000 US troops had been killed. Iraqi civilian deaths would be
>anything between 17,000 and 100,000.
>
>One reason for that unknown figure is that the Pentagon refuses to
>keep a figure concerning the number of Iraqi civilians that they have
>killed, which is hardly respectful.
>So this number of men, women and children is a biased estimate based
>on who you ask.
So NOW someone wants the number of Iraqi casualties counted. But that
didn't fit into John Kerry's "America is suffering 90% of the
casualties" speech!
Here's a stat for ya: In 1988 when the Kurds rose up against Saddam
(BTW there is not a single US soldier in the Kurdish lands to the
North. They absolutely love us there!) Saddam gassed them and
estimates put the number of dead in that one incident betweeen 50,000
and 100,000. Most of them, the women and children you're NOW suddenly
so concerned about.
It's estimated that Saddam has killed bewteen 500,000 and 800,000
people in the last 15 years or so. Even if what everything you're
saying is true about Bush's motives for this war, this mission, and
the lives of the 1000+ American soldiers, at WORST was a humanitarian
effort to stop the next 500,000 from dying.
And for you liberal assholes to demean that by insinuating that our
efforts to relieve that killing and suffering are the root CAUSE of
the Iraqi people's suffering and pain ABSOLUTELY SICKENS me!
>Kind of a lot of deaths just to protect Saddam from being a threat to
>anyone, which he was not even in the first place.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people that were killed by
Saddams chemical weapons in the Kurdish north and the Iranian war.
>Let me put it this way, when what now is a good reason for all these
>deaths?
>No WMDs.
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military
and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their
mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors...
"if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away
with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by
the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he
has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday --
make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. "
- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
>No Al-Qaeda.
"Terrorists are pouring over the border into Iraq every day"
- John Kerry, 1st Presidential debate.
>Not even an Iraqi took part in WTC 9/11.
And Germany and Italy didn't attack us on December 7, 1941 either.
But FDR knew he had to fight fascism wherever it was and George Bush
knows we have to fight to fight terrorists and state sponsors of
terror. I know Iran and North Korea are bigger threats but Clinton
argued that point quite well also:
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them.
Not once, but repeatedly."
- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
If people like Cradman here are the "allies" we need to have on our
side, who needs enemies? We should have left Europe in the heap it
was after WWII and made them rebuild their damn selves.
|
