Originally Posted by jimmac
SDW they were saying there's no point to their job. There was no reason to comply. And if you say this war was fought over a lack of compliance that makes it even more damning. There was nothing to find. You can slice it sideways and guess what? There was still nothing to find. Nothing is nothing. It's history now. You can't change it or spin it.
I just realized that once again you are trying to make a thread that has nothing to do with Iraq into a WMD debate. Not playing that game, sorry.
Originally Posted by segovius
This thread seems predicated on an insane proposition. Think about it:1) Obama is a liberal and want to do liberal things. Baaaaad.
2) But he doesn't do them - he does the opposite or ignores what he said. Baaaaaad
Uh, he DOES do them. He's done them and is continuing to do them.
It doesn't make sense? I think we've found a bug in the winger reverse-speak loop...
If it was on the other foot with Repubs there'd be no problem from the Left:
1) Bush is a winger and he wants to do winger things like invade countries and kill people. Baaaaad.
2) But he doesn't do them - he does the opposite or ignores what he said. Goooooooood.
See what the problem is here?
The winger argument is that Obama is bad and his popularity rating is down and that proves it - but it is down because he is not doing many things the liberals would approve of... wtf?????
His rating is down because: He never had the Right, he's losing the middle quickly and he's pissed off the extreme left, who wants him to go even further.
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
It's interesting to note that the US was embroiled in something called the Cold War for several decades and won the war without firing a single shot. The war was raged against a country called the USSR which had a leader, Stalin, who killed many millions of his people, yet the US did not invade.
The USSR certainly had nukes; they tested them regularly. They had missiles, and subs, and long range bombers, and many tanks and men. In short, they were a huge threat to the US. Yet we never attacked them.
What's the difference with Iraq?
Could it be they had a massive nuclear and conventional capability, not to mention what...50x the land area? Of course not.
Could it be that they were weak (though the administration played them up to be so powerful) and more importantly, not because of Saddam, nor the WMDs, but the financial rewards the invasion would bring a few of the president's cronies and because of that BLACK stuff under Iraq? Halliburton. Blackwater. Some people got pretty wealthy. Oh, and I forgot the companies that make the tanks, and GOD gun sights, and guns and etc, etc.
What was the difference between the USSR and Iraq? Why invade one, not the other? Why discuss invading Iran? China has WMDs. So do France, England, Russia and Israel. Why aren't they considered more of a threat?
Yes, yes, Berg. War for oil. It was all done to enrich Bush's "cronies." You sound like a goddamned junior high school student.