|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 23, 2011 5:50:46 GMT -8
xrl.us/bjvq7fAnother inconvienient truth that liberals and the likes of the NYT have tried to cover up.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 23, 2011 7:03:02 GMT -8
Your link is broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 23, 2011 7:05:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 23, 2011 7:20:33 GMT -8
The second link worked. Interesting, but unconvincing. I certainly do not see anything in that article that justifys the loss of so many American lifes, Not even counting Iaqi civilian deaths, and the huge increase in our national debt by putting the war on the nation's credit card.
We all know that Saddam used chemical weapons in his war against Iran and against Iraqi citizens opposed to him. It is no wonder that there were some left somewhere. One has to wonder if they were still a viable part of his arsenal why he did not use them against our troops. Since he did not the logical conclusion is that they were not a viable part of his arsenal.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 23, 2011 7:21:53 GMT -8
The second link worked. Interesting, but unconvincing. I certainly do not see anything in that article that justifys the loss of so many American lifes, Not even counting Iaqi civilian deaths, and the huge increase in our national debt by putting the war on the nation's credit card. We all know that Saddam used chemical weapons in his war against Iran and against Iraqi citizens opposed to him. It is no wonder that there were some left somewhere. One has to wonder if they were still a viable part of his arsenal why he did not use them against our troops. Since he did not the logical conclusion is that they were not a viable part of his arsenal. The first link works as well. Time for a new computer? |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Apr 23, 2011 8:31:27 GMT -8
MaDeline albright (misnomer) was livid about WMDs and started the program under Billy the Cheater Clinton, oh, sorry, President Billy the Cheater Clinton. ('need to show more R.E.S.P.C.)
It's like the last George Carlin comedy routine. He dumps on the Bushes but fails to mention Roosevelt interned the American-japanese. A libel double standard.
The libel press never mentions that WMDs was a Clinton/Albright program, with a no-fly zone, dropping bums on Iraqing children etc.
It was Bush's fault Kawhi went early, did ja know?
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Apr 23, 2011 14:03:10 GMT -8
Anyone who ever thought Saddam didn't have WMD's at some point are naive. He got them hidden or moved just in time. Most went to Syria. In fact all of the nerve agents were buried/stashed only a few meters inside Syria. Now, with Assad likely to fall, we might be able to get them dug up to show the world. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 23, 2011 22:05:48 GMT -8
Here are some important points to remember about Iraq:
1.) Papa Bush, though his reasoning made sense from one perspective, really did kick the can down the road by not going all out to remove Saddam.
2.) The U.S. was perfectly justified, from any standpoint you care to mention, in invading Iraq. In fact, we would have been justified in doing so the first time Saddam had his forces fire on our planes operating to maintain the no-fly zone. If you are out on parole, you don't get to throw rocks at police cars with impunity.
3.) George Bush's biggest mistake, one might say, was not invading in the first place, but badly miss-handling the post invasion operation. In effect, his administration was like a pilot who has learned how to get a plane into the air with no thought given to how he is going to get it down safely. There is just no excuse for that.
4.) Though correct from a legal perspective, whether invading Iraq was a wise decision is open to question. Obviously the cost to America was great, and the long term consequences of doing so are not clear and will not be clear for years to come. Right now it looks like Iraq is going to become a stable nation whose citizens are not brutalized on a daily basis by a sociopathic dictator. We can't be sure of that, of course. What most people, especially critics of the war, do not ask themselves is what the Persian Gulf area would look like were Saddam still in power. Oh, on that note, I wonder how the citizens of Iraq would respond to a one question poll with this as the question:
Are you happy that the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq, or do you wish that Saddam Hussein were still in power?
How do you think the majority of Iraqis would respond?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 24, 2011 8:40:17 GMT -8
The second link worked. Interesting, but unconvincing. I certainly do not see anything in that article that justifys the loss of so many American lifes, Not even counting Iaqi civilian deaths, and the huge increase in our national debt by putting the war on the nation's credit card. We all know that Saddam used chemical weapons in his war against Iran and against Iraqi citizens opposed to him. It is no wonder that there were some left somewhere. One has to wonder if they were still a viable part of his arsenal why he did not use them against our troops. Since he did not the logical conclusion is that they were not a viable part of his arsenal. The first link works as well. Time for a new computer? I am thinking about replacing my elderly desktop with a Ipad.  |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 24, 2011 18:52:03 GMT -8
Blogger claims and extremist website articles are overpriced at a dime a dozen.
Can you possibly link to legitimate news sources or perhaps directly to the wikilinks docs?
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Apr 27, 2011 18:14:09 GMT -8
Anyone who ever thought Saddam didn't have WMD's at some point are naive. He got them hidden or moved just in time. And he played the UN inspectors big time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2011 10:16:25 GMT -8
We all know that Saddam used chemical weapons in his war against Iran and against Iraqi citizens opposed to him. It is no wonder that there were some left somewhere. One has to wonder if they were still a viable part of his arsenal why he did not use them against our troops. Since he did not the logical conclusion is that they were not a viable part of his arsenal. No way! the liberal media - to quote directly from the thoroughly unbiased article linked by win - lied! Saddam was still very actively involved in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction which he was planned to deliver to the United States via ICBMs with a reach of 10K miles! Don't be fooled! Saddam was a huge threat to the United States and had to go at any cost! BTW, anybody see the recent segment by that "liberal media" outlet 60 Minutes updating its prior story on the Iraqi who the Bush administration had Colin Powell refer to unnamed in his speech to the UN? Too bad 60 Minutes is a "liberal media" outlet which therefore can't be believed because it sure does seem like anybody with an ounce of brains wouldn't have relied on the hearsay reports from the German government as to what that guy was telling them. Oh and make no mistake, I'm not saying the Bush didn't have an ounce of brains. Rather, the 60 Minutes report just further confirmed that the Bush administration was hell bent on invading Iraq and was therefore hell bent to find something, anything, to justify doing so. |
|
