Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
The only thing I admit is that YOU were arguing from the humanitarian stand point. But you said the motivation of the administration to go into war was humanitarian. And that is what is the issue here.
I know George W. Bush and you, sir, are not George W. Bush.
I guess I don't see the point of the arguing here.
Before war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
After war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
Wasn't the contention by the Bush administration that if the war on Iraq had not occurred that the after statement would read, Terrorists using dirty nuke or nerve gas attack and kill tens of thousands of people throughout the world?
And not to be a real ass, but regardless of Bushspeak and my statements it is pretty clear that throughout the world means, pretty much U.S. soil.
Eitherway I don't see the connection here. I don't see how Al Queda attacking Saudi Arabia shows that Bush did not prevent the dissemination of WOMD to terrorist parties via governments that supported terrorism and sought large scale attacks on the U.S.
I guess I don't see the point of the arguing here.
Before war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
After war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
Wasn't the contention by the Bush administration that if the war on Iraq had not occurred that the after statement would read, Terrorists using dirty nuke or nerve gas attack and kill tens of thousands of people throughout the world?
The WMD in other words.
The Iraqi WMD (we sold him) that is now out of date and uh non existent.
Or do you mean the nuclear material looted from facilities after the war and that may well be in terrorist hands now when it was safer in Saddam's hands?
Or the stuff bought off the back of a truck in Pakistan (an ally) or from a hard up soviet republic.
Before last week, Bush (and people on this board) were saying "See? Less terror! Al Q are on the run!"
And then the bombs went off.
Now they are saying "But they don't have WMD! The war did that!"
Trouble is, it pissed off more people without preventing the spread of WMD.
Everyone who knew anything about the situation knew right when he said it that it was bunk. The only person who thought it was valid was Rush Limbaugh.
Do you dispute that? Even my freaking mother knew the Saddam/al Qaeda link was bunk and she only watches FoxNews and is a die-hard Republican.
Of course the administration said it a lot (apparently), I wouldn't really know because the only time I really see what the administration says is when I look up transcripts on the internet, I know they are liars so I don't seek out their wisdom.
Prominent != what the administration says is prominent. Think for yourself.
----
Anders:
Quote:
But you said the motivation of the administration to go into war was humanitarian.
Well since I said it surely you'll be able to quote me.
I'll be waiting.
And I'll be waiting a long time because that's an outright lie.
Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
The Iraqi WMD (we sold him) that is now out of date and uh non existent.
Or do you mean the nuclear material looted from facilities after the war and that may well be in terrorist hands now when it was safer in Saddam's hands?
Or the stuff bought off the back of a truck in Pakistan (an ally) or from a hard up soviet republic.
Before last week, Bush (and people on this board) were saying "See? Less terror! Al Q are on the run!"
And then the bombs went off.
Now they are saying "But they don't have WMD! The war did that!"
Trouble is, it pissed off more people without preventing the spread of WMD.
What will you say when a dirty bomb goes off?
The weapons of mass destruction we sold him? I read about the seed program for medical research. If you want people to discuss things with you rationally, you can't go around arguing that 2+2 = 40 and expect people to engage you. We wern't selling him barrels of Anthrax.
The material from the reactor, while radioactive was judged not to be capable of producing a bomb. I did not read that it was actual nuclear material, but rather the surrounding materials from the plant (which Israel bombed) that were contaminated by exposure. This material is what was looted. If you have read different and care to post a source, I'll be happy to consider it.
As for pissing more people off. If people are going to get pissed because I won't a) convert to islam b) let them kill me, then I guess they are going to have to be pissed.
As for "and then the bombs went off," again you make this sound like something atypical. If you comb the news these types of attacks have been happening a dozen plus times per year since pretty much Israel was created. They likely occured before then as well, but were consider islamic terrorists against the west like now. The point of the war was now we are not saying and then the nerve gas bombs or nuclear bombs went off.
What will I say if a dirty nuke goes off? That 12 years of pacifism and sanctions didn't work and rather then appealing to someone's better nature (especially when they don't have one) and hoping for the best is stupid. Next time it should be more aggressive, and insure total destruction.
I can't honestly see why anyone would hope for Bush to be wrong. Instead of smart bombs and bumbker busters, he would have to listen to the folks whispering "tactical nukes." Instead of just trying to change a government, you would suggest the alternatives which is destroy the country or outright genecide.
What will I say if a dirty nuke goes off? That 12 years of pacifism and sanctions didn't work and rather then appealing to someone's better nature (especially when they don't have one) and hoping for the best is stupid.
Comments
Quite clever of you with the Search function, I like it!
Originally posted by groverat
Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
Originally posted by groverat
Forgiven.
Oh but you are not off the hook yet Grover.
The only thing I admit is that YOU were arguing from the humanitarian stand point. But you said the motivation of the administration to go into war was humanitarian. And that is what is the issue here.
I know George W. Bush and you, sir, are not George W. Bush.
Before war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
After war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
Wasn't the contention by the Bush administration that if the war on Iraq had not occurred that the after statement would read, Terrorists using dirty nuke or nerve gas attack and kill tens of thousands of people throughout the world?
And not to be a real ass, but regardless of Bushspeak and my statements it is pretty clear that throughout the world means, pretty much U.S. soil.
Eitherway I don't see the connection here. I don't see how Al Queda attacking Saudi Arabia shows that Bush did not prevent the dissemination of WOMD to terrorist parties via governments that supported terrorism and sought large scale attacks on the U.S.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I guess I don't see the point of the arguing here.
Before war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
After war on Iraq - Terrorists using mainly small bombs and small arms attack and kill people throughout the world
Wasn't the contention by the Bush administration that if the war on Iraq had not occurred that the after statement would read, Terrorists using dirty nuke or nerve gas attack and kill tens of thousands of people throughout the world?
The WMD in other words.
The Iraqi WMD (we sold him) that is now out of date and uh non existent.
Or do you mean the nuclear material looted from facilities after the war and that may well be in terrorist hands now when it was safer in Saddam's hands?
Or the stuff bought off the back of a truck in Pakistan (an ally) or from a hard up soviet republic.
Before last week, Bush (and people on this board) were saying "See? Less terror! Al Q are on the run!"
And then the bombs went off.
Now they are saying "But they don't have WMD! The war did that!"
Trouble is, it pissed off more people without preventing the spread of WMD.
What will you say when a dirty bomb goes off?
Last chance:
For what?
Everyone who knew anything about the situation knew right when he said it that it was bunk. The only person who thought it was valid was Rush Limbaugh.
Do you dispute that? Even my freaking mother knew the Saddam/al Qaeda link was bunk and she only watches FoxNews and is a die-hard Republican.
Of course the administration said it a lot (apparently), I wouldn't really know because the only time I really see what the administration says is when I look up transcripts on the internet, I know they are liars so I don't seek out their wisdom.
Prominent != what the administration says is prominent. Think for yourself.
----
Anders:
But you said the motivation of the administration to go into war was humanitarian.
Well since I said it surely you'll be able to quote me.
I'll be waiting.
And I'll be waiting a long time because that's an outright lie.
Originally posted by groverat
Even my freaking mother knew the Saddam/al Qaeda link was bunk and she only watches FoxNews and is a die-hard Republican.
Funny, you never argue with the ultra-conservatives around here who claim that this link is a 'foregone conclusion.' Why is that?
Funny, you never argue with the ultra-conservatives around here who claim that this link is a 'foregone conclusion.' Why is that?
Silence = agreement (or "agreeance" to Fred Durst)?
There are plenty of people here to shout down the ultra-conservatives.
Originally posted by groverat
Terrorism was the least prominent of the reasons expressed by the administration and other war-makers.
If you can find someone outside Rush Limbaugh who *ever* associated this war with a war on al Qaeda that would hurt the terrorist organization please feel free to name them.
Originally posted by groverat
Silence = agreement (or "agreeance" to Fred Durst)?
Silence is golden.
I thought this had been proven. (after the fact, but still proven)
Originally posted by ena
What about the documentation found that seemingly connected the two?
I thought this had been proven. (after the fact, but still proven)
Remind me young lady?
Originally posted by Harald
Remind me young lady?
Sorry for the confusion---but I am a dude.
I just remember the documentation was found that made the link. Does anybody remeber this?
Originally posted by Harald
The WMD in other words.
The Iraqi WMD (we sold him) that is now out of date and uh non existent.
Or do you mean the nuclear material looted from facilities after the war and that may well be in terrorist hands now when it was safer in Saddam's hands?
Or the stuff bought off the back of a truck in Pakistan (an ally) or from a hard up soviet republic.
Before last week, Bush (and people on this board) were saying "See? Less terror! Al Q are on the run!"
And then the bombs went off.
Now they are saying "But they don't have WMD! The war did that!"
Trouble is, it pissed off more people without preventing the spread of WMD.
What will you say when a dirty bomb goes off?
The weapons of mass destruction we sold him? I read about the seed program for medical research. If you want people to discuss things with you rationally, you can't go around arguing that 2+2 = 40 and expect people to engage you. We wern't selling him barrels of Anthrax.
The material from the reactor, while radioactive was judged not to be capable of producing a bomb. I did not read that it was actual nuclear material, but rather the surrounding materials from the plant (which Israel bombed) that were contaminated by exposure. This material is what was looted. If you have read different and care to post a source, I'll be happy to consider it.
As for pissing more people off. If people are going to get pissed because I won't a) convert to islam b) let them kill me, then I guess they are going to have to be pissed.
As for "and then the bombs went off," again you make this sound like something atypical. If you comb the news these types of attacks have been happening a dozen plus times per year since pretty much Israel was created. They likely occured before then as well, but were consider islamic terrorists against the west like now. The point of the war was now we are not saying and then the nerve gas bombs or nuclear bombs went off.
What will I say if a dirty nuke goes off? That 12 years of pacifism and sanctions didn't work and rather then appealing to someone's better nature (especially when they don't have one) and hoping for the best is stupid. Next time it should be more aggressive, and insure total destruction.
I can't honestly see why anyone would hope for Bush to be wrong. Instead of smart bombs and bumbker busters, he would have to listen to the folks whispering "tactical nukes." Instead of just trying to change a government, you would suggest the alternatives which is destroy the country or outright genecide.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What will I say if a dirty nuke goes off? That 12 years of pacifism and sanctions didn't work and rather then appealing to someone's better nature (especially when they don't have one) and hoping for the best is stupid.
Blame Bill!
Originally posted by bunge
Blame Bill!
Nah, 12 years would cover George Sr. and even hit George Jr. a little bit.
Nick