-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter O-S-U
- Start date
What in the #@*#* does the invasion of Iraq have to do with Osama Bin Laden? Oh, that's right, we were afraid that Saddam was going to give Osama those weapons of mass destruction. Oh, what's that you say? He was telling the freaking truth when he said he didn't have them? Oh well, who would have thought he was capable of honesty? Let's just say that we invaded Iraq, because Saddam gassed a bunch of Kurds in 1988. No one will question why we didn't take him out back then!
Let's face it: much of what the American people were fed before the war was BS. The fact that we "know he has WMD," BS. The fact that he was working on nukes, or may have allready developed them, BS. The fact that he was likely to deal with Bin Laden in the first place, BS. That he was not complying with Hans Blix and the UN, BS. That he kicked out the weapons inspectors, in 1998, BS - Richard Butler himself pulled the inspectors out when Clinton started bombing.
I'm not sorry that Saddam is out of power, but it is outrageous that our Government felt the need to lie to us repeatedly, in order to gain popular support to do it. What pisses me off is that Osama Bin Laden is STILL ON THE LOOSE. This after Bush promised to get him "dead or alive" three years ago. Why in the world did we not have a large scale invasion of Afghanistan, the same way we had in Iraq?
What's really funny is that the republicans are now holding up these pictures of the dead Kurdish kids now, and talking about how horrible it was that they were gassed, nearly 20 years later, and before Rumsfeld took that stupid picture with Saddam.
Yeah, what about our kids here at home? What about our "kids" over there in Iraq, who are getting killed for something that had absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism other than a 16 year old atrocity that no one even mentioned before we "found out" that Saddam didn't have any WMD.
Let's face it: much of what the American people were fed before the war was BS. The fact that we "know he has WMD," BS. The fact that he was working on nukes, or may have allready developed them, BS. The fact that he was likely to deal with Bin Laden in the first place, BS. That he was not complying with Hans Blix and the UN, BS. That he kicked out the weapons inspectors, in 1998, BS - Richard Butler himself pulled the inspectors out when Clinton started bombing.
I'm not sorry that Saddam is out of power, but it is outrageous that our Government felt the need to lie to us repeatedly, in order to gain popular support to do it. What pisses me off is that Osama Bin Laden is STILL ON THE LOOSE. This after Bush promised to get him "dead or alive" three years ago. Why in the world did we not have a large scale invasion of Afghanistan, the same way we had in Iraq?
What's really funny is that the republicans are now holding up these pictures of the dead Kurdish kids now, and talking about how horrible it was that they were gassed, nearly 20 years later, and before Rumsfeld took that stupid picture with Saddam.
Yeah, what about our kids here at home? What about our "kids" over there in Iraq, who are getting killed for something that had absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism other than a 16 year old atrocity that no one even mentioned before we "found out" that Saddam didn't have any WMD.
Upvote
0
buckiprof
21st Century Buckeye Man
ashland -
I am glad that we did not do a pre-emptive strike. That is not what our country is/was about until last year that is. You can't lay the blame solely on Clinton about North Korea. There have been many other presidents besides Clinton who did nothing. Hell, Bushie II didn't invade North Korea when he knew that they DID/DO have WMD's. Instead he "led" us into Iraq where there are no WMD's which recall was the basis for the invasion of Iraq.
That is your belief and you are entitled to it. One cannot argue against another's belief. So my belief is that from Day 1 he was looking for any reason whatsoever to invade Iraq and the lies about WMD's and the link Iraq had with al-Quaida (more lies) provided the cover he needed. My belief is that going to war based on lies is not the right thing to do.
Upvote
0
Could not say it better myself. If Bush had only told the truth, I may have supported the Iraq war from the get go. Instead, Bush fed us lies and pissed all over any good will we had after 9/11. People might not care what the rest of the world thinks about us now, but when we no longer have friends, and other countries arm themselves to defend against us...
Upvote
0
BuckeyeInTheBoro
This space left intentionally blank
I keep hearing how Bush lied to get us into Iraq, but this logic confuses me. Doesn't it seem more likely that he actually believed there were WMD in Iraq? Why would he just bold-faced lie about this knowing full well he would be in the middle of a re-election campaign right about the time people figured out there were no WMD? If he was so dishonest why not just plant some WMD in Iraq and then "find" them?
Contrary to popular opinion Bush isn't that dumb. I know it's popular to think of him as stupid, but the man did score a 1206 on his SATs which isn't genius, but is a far cry from how dumb you would have to be to lie about WMD intentionally.
You want to argue that Rumsfeld lied and Bush was dumb enough to believe him... I've got no good arguement for that, I trust that man as far as I could throw him. But remember... many other intelligent people believed the intelligence on this issue too... Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and John Kerry to name a few.
Upvote
0
Buckeye in the Boro: Here is a chart of just some of the falshoods perpetrated on the American People by the administration. Even if Bush really believed that Saddam had WMD, he still obviously lied about Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the UN inspectors and alleged contacts with Al Queda. The point is that the man has a pattern for dishonesty about matters much more serious than getting a hummer from a chubby intern.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
woody
Of course GW didn't attack N. Korea as they already have the bomb.
This as the very reason for going into Iraq. He removed a tyrannical despot before he could obtain and use it on any number of innocent people.
He killed his own people with gas. He certainly wouldn't hesitate to use the bomb on others as well. Removing him was in the best interest of the entire world.
As far as Saddam having WMD. You simply do not know he didn't any more than I know he did. They could've been shipped to Syria long before our invasion. I can not and will not say Saddam had these weapons as I personally have no proof. You will say he didn't simply because you want to toe the liberal line.
Of course GW didn't attack N. Korea as they already have the bomb.
This as the very reason for going into Iraq. He removed a tyrannical despot before he could obtain and use it on any number of innocent people.
He killed his own people with gas. He certainly wouldn't hesitate to use the bomb on others as well. Removing him was in the best interest of the entire world.
As far as Saddam having WMD. You simply do not know he didn't any more than I know he did. They could've been shipped to Syria long before our invasion. I can not and will not say Saddam had these weapons as I personally have no proof. You will say he didn't simply because you want to toe the liberal line.
Upvote
0
I didn't say otherwise, I think that was someone else's post.
As to whether or not he had the WMD, I think there was more convincing evidence out there before the invasion that he did not have this stuff. I don't think that the media did a very good job of raising the issue, since post 9/11 it seems as if the media has been willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
Believe me, I am glad that Saddam is gone, because of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. But I think that Bush couldn't use that reasoning to go to war, because the more conservative Republicans wouldn't have supported it.
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
woody
I assume from the statements you just made that you do agree with the removal of Saddam.
Your only problem is that you believe GW lied to you in the process.
Is this correct?
I assume from the statements you just made that you do agree with the removal of Saddam.
Your only problem is that you believe GW lied to you in the process.
Is this correct?
Upvote
0
Sloopy45
Pimp Minister Sinister
ashland: "Your only problem is that you believe GW lied to you in the process."
Did Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, and Bubba lie to me when they all told me the same thing & whole-heartedly agreed that Saddam had Weapons of Mass destruction in the 90's?
I mean, if we all agree that there's no problem with removing Saddam, but there is a problem with politicians telling us there were WOMD in Iraq, shouldn't that gripe stretch across political boundaries?
If that's not the case, and we're selectively crucifying Bush for telling us there were WOMD and not criticizing Clinton & the Dems (who all told us the same EXACT thing), then we're forwarding our own Liberal agenda and not really practicing the Liberal self-righteousness and morals that we're so proud of.
Did Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, and Bubba lie to me when they all told me the same thing & whole-heartedly agreed that Saddam had Weapons of Mass destruction in the 90's?
I mean, if we all agree that there's no problem with removing Saddam, but there is a problem with politicians telling us there were WOMD in Iraq, shouldn't that gripe stretch across political boundaries?
If that's not the case, and we're selectively crucifying Bush for telling us there were WOMD and not criticizing Clinton & the Dems (who all told us the same EXACT thing), then we're forwarding our own Liberal agenda and not really practicing the Liberal self-righteousness and morals that we're so proud of.
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
Woody
But you just said that sending our troops wasn't the problem.
The lies of GW was.
But you just said that sending our troops wasn't the problem.
The lies of GW was.
Upvote
0
Yes, the two statements are not inconsistant. I said that I am pissed that Bush sent the troops over there based on lies. Clinton and Gore did not invade Iraq. Dick Gephardt supported the invasion based on th WMD line, and I don't care for him either.
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
But you simply do not know for a FACT that Bush's actions were based on lies. You have no way of knowing this without any doubt.
You also claim to support the removal of Saddam, so where is your argument based on facts?
You argument is based on your liberal ideology and nothing more.
You continue to spew liberal assumptions with no real facts to back your claims.
Let's deal with facts and what we really know and what can be prooven.
If years down the line we learn that GW purposly and willingly lied to the American people then we all should be upset over that. Until then, your argument is weak and rings hollow to everyone.
Are you actually studying to be bar certified?
You also claim to support the removal of Saddam, so where is your argument based on facts?
You argument is based on your liberal ideology and nothing more.
You continue to spew liberal assumptions with no real facts to back your claims.
Let's deal with facts and what we really know and what can be prooven.
If years down the line we learn that GW purposly and willingly lied to the American people then we all should be upset over that. Until then, your argument is weak and rings hollow to everyone.
Are you actually studying to be bar certified?
Upvote
0