Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
"Handover Accomplished"
- Thread starter ChefWide
- Start date
Dante Alighieri
New member
Lol yea, safe at last eh!
Longhorn85
New member
Cynics and Bush-haters, UNITE! In the meantime, the mission continues as planned.
the nature boy
New member
Ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!!!!!
Longhorn85
New member
Hengst said:
Neither. The mission was to rid the world of a regime that openly supported terrorism.
strongsmartsexy
New member
Longhorn85 said:
Damn! We failed then since the US government is still here.
plornive
New member
How about all of the regimes which covertly support terror? Why not rid the world of the Saudi royalty? Did invading Iraq do anything to prevent terrorism? How about Al Qaeda? Did invading Iraq not unite muslims on the side of Al Qaeda? Why not concentrate on Al Qaeda?Longhorn85 said:
I have no problem with the goal of trying to change society in the middle east, and the goal of trying to further US power in the middle east - political, militarily or economically. And, rhetoric must be used to support the measures used to such purposes.
But, I am not sure invading Iraq in specific, at the time it was done, was a good idea. Perhaps we should have spent our money and our *reputation* a bit more wisely. I guess I'll shut up before I am labeled a whining spoilsport who wishes harm on his own country.
(I'm giving myself a spanking right now... wait.....)
Do you really believe the goal was to rid the world of a regime which supported terrorism? Isn't long term stability and power the real goal? Can't we admit that to each other, here? Further, for the sake of international relations, can't we remove the residue of dumbness to the rhetoric of the US government?
Testosterone boy
New member
Perhaps noyone has told you that only the Bushbarians stubbornly cling to that rhetoric.Longhorn85 said:
None of these agencies have evidence that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism:
CIA
FBI
NSA
NRO
DIA
Longhorn85
New member
Testosterone boy said:
Maybe you missed it. Saddam Hussein was directly and openly paying terrorists in the Gaza strip.
Longhorn85
New member
WODIN said:
This violates the Bush doctrine.
Longhorn85
New member
If you feel that way you should vote for Kerry. I have a feeling more will vote for Bush.
Longhorn85 said:
So the real reason we went to war in Iraq was to protect Isreal.
And this is the problem. The Bush administration lied to the Americans as to the true reasons and used the (non-existant) WMD, the (non-existant)Saddam-Al Queda connection and the banner of democracy and freedom (long live the torture chambers!!) as excuses for this war.
Your admission that the war was to protect Isreal is the only reason that makes sense as the layers of their lies are being exposed.
But to suggest that the Neo-Cons in power are in thrall with Isreal and are using the American Government to push an Isreali agenda gets drowned out in a accusations of right-wign conspiracy theories and anti-semitism.
A year ago I suggested the true reasons for this war was the defense of Isreal and that the current leaders in our country are not acting in the best interests of the american citizens.
Tony Blair may be Bush's Poodle but Bush is Sharon's Bitch.
The Isrealis have taken the opportunity caused by the confusion the Iraqi war and have even more aggresively walled off, stolen property, pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing and further subjugated the palistinian people.
Watching CNBC at work. Saddam's lawyers just reported that the War against Iraq is illegal. Nothing to show that Saddam had any dealings with terroism, nor any connection to bin laden.
Saddam has a lot of support and terroism over there seems to be the "in" thing.
this is not looking good.
Saddam has a lot of support and terroism over there seems to be the "in" thing.
this is not looking good.
Longhorn85
New member
Hengst said:
You are putting words into my mouth. Someone axed me to cite how Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism. Paying homicide bombers in Gaza was one way. The fight is vs the Global terror threat.
jestro
New member
It should get interesting. The court will not be anything like fair, but there will be some interesting things to come out of it. Some of the charges include: Invading Kuwait(we gave them the go ahead), and the Iran-Iraq war. How can you charge Saddam with that? Is the leader of Iran being charged as well?2ez said:
Longhorn85
New member
It's all too predictable that these kinds of questions and cross-accusations come up once Hussein's trial begins. There are those who just take this as another opportunity to try and somehow make the US look responsible. That is why I'm glad the Iraqis are responsible for prosecuting him instead of us. They are more likely to ensure that justice is served.
bluepeter
New member
Longhorn85 said:
I must agree with you here. Saddam was a brutal dictator that murdered many so I hope he's held accountable. It needs to be a completely separate issue from the US invasion of Iraq which as you say, will hopefully be the case with him being tried by Iraqis. As for the actual invasion.............lol, you know what I think about that
Longhorn85
New member
jestro said:
You mean the part of the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam used chemical warfare against civilian Kurds? Self-explanatory.
So your best defense is that Pol Pot and Idi Amin did worse and they didn't get charged? Okay, for his sake I hope his defense attorney has better arguments.
The Iraqi people will decide what to do with him.
Longhorn85 said:
and ? So you should go after every terrorist organization in the world ? Is that the Bush doctrine ? If yes, then I have good news. What about these:
- ETA and Catalans separatists in Spain
- Corsica separatists in France
- italian mafia
- all these commies in South America
- Iran
- Syria
- Cachemire muslims
- Cuba
- Mexico
- Saudi royal family
- Hells Angels (no kidding, they're being prosecuted under the new terrorist laws here)
Damn I should open a "body-bag" business soon...
Longhorn85
New member
manny78 said:
Your point is? Obviously we can't go after all at once, although your list don't all meet the criteria. All regimes that support terrorism face possible intervention from the US and other supporting countries. Iraq and Aghanistan have drawn the short straws so far. I don't pretend to know who will be next.
As far as Spain and France are concerned we know those govts are weak so we may have to step up for them someday.
Similar threads
