U.S., Russia: Iraq had no WMDs

[carpro]

Look, there is not a bit of difference between the liberals and the neoconservatives. All are big government, deficit spending, chickenhawk, nation building, servants of AIPAC. However, there was one party that was in the executive branch and one party that ruled congress at the time of the invasion of Iraq, it was their decision so I used their quotes. The question is not who has the most quotes for how Iraq had WMDs. The question is, based on the evidence that there were not WMDs when we invaded and there are not now and yet WMDs was the primary pretext for war...why is the USA spilling American blood in a desert that has nothing to do with the national interests of the United States of America and in light of this information why aren't we leaving?

Then why did you quote one and not the other? We wouldn't be there without the support of many of those democrats I quoted. So...

You're still quibbling.

But it is only your opinion that what becomes of Iraq has "nothing to do with the national interests of the United States". It's a simplistic viewpoint and obviously wrong. I don't believe any politician from either party would agree with your statement.

 

[KenH]

It is pretty clear now that the United States government was led to invade Iraq to attempt to start to fulfill the neo-"conservatives" dream of American Empire, especially in the Middle East. The fact that so many of the supporters of PNAC(www.newamericancentury.org) were influential in the Bush administration leaves little room for doubt about this now.

 

[Dragoon68]

It is pretty clear now that the United States government was led to invade Iraq to attempt to start to fulfill the neo-"conservatives" dream of American Empire, especially in the Middle East. The fact that so many of the supporters of PNAC(www.newamericancentury.org) were influential in the Bush administration leaves little room for doubt about this now.

American Empire? Do you mean like the French, British, Spanish, or Portuguese Empires where they went out and tried to colonize the world to rob them of human and natural resources?

 

[KenH]

American Empire as "we are going to do what we want to whom we want whenever we want".

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution [the traditional international system] that is not capable of defending us." - Richard Perle

 

[Dragoon68]

American Empire as "we are going to do what we want to whom we want whenever we want".

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution [the traditional international system] that is not capable of defending us." - Richard Perle

I'm very relieved to know that our "American Empire" plan is merely to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves from terrorists! I thought maybe the game plan had changed to colonialism or something like that.

 

[carpro]

It is pretty clear now that the United States government was led to invade Iraq to attempt to start to fulfill the neo-"conservatives" dream of American Empire, especially in the Middle East. The fact that so many of the supporters of PNAC(www.newamericancentury.org) were influential in the Bush administration leaves little room for doubt about this now.

Do we have another budding conspiracy theorist?:laugh:

 

[KenH]

Not at all. PNAC was quite open about what it as an interest group wanted the federal government to do.

 

[Dragoon68]

Do we have another budding conspiracy theorist?:laugh:

I predict that Poncho will soon advise us of the "truth" that we are, allegedly, to blind to discern or to stupid to understand. This has to be about "GovCorp" or something like that. It just couldn't be about a nation determined to defend itself against a ruthless enemy that uses terrorism without any boundaries of lawful warfare against anyone and everyone to spread fear, chaos, and hopelessness among even powerful nations.

 

[KenH]

It just couldn't be about a nation determined to defend itself against a ruthless enemy that uses terrorism without any boundaries of lawful warfare against anyone and everyone to spread fear, chaos, and hopelessness among even powerful nations.

Invading Iraq in March 2003 had nothing to do with fighting al Qaeda - you know, the people that attacked our country on 9/11/2001 - or its Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Iraq was not a threat to our nation in March 2003.

Frankly, Iraq is actually becoming a threat to us today, after we removed Saddam Hussein, as it plunges headlong toward becoming a failed state. And a failed state is the best situation for an organization such as al Qaeda to exist in. And the problem is that keeping our troops in Iraq for even ten more years won't stop this from happening.

President Bush's Folly in Iraq may very well go down in history as the singular event that eventually removes these United States from the ranks of being a superpower.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Even the Dems believed that alquada was part of what was going on in Iraq as I have provided the quotes. What is childish and foolish is to continue the lie that anyone lied about wmd's.

The op was most certainly lop sided politically and it appears this was done on purpose. Many "believed" that wmd's were their. And there is some question still about what was shipped to Syria just before we went in. I dare say history will tell.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Even the Dems believed that alquada was part of what was going on in Iraq as I have provided the quotes. What is childish and foolish is to continue the lie that anyone lied about wmd's.

The op was most certainly lop sided politically and it appears this was done on purpose. Many "believed" that wmd's were their. And there is some question still about what was shipped to Syria just before we went in. I dare say history will tell.

What do you call the case for WMDs then? Both the Democrans and the Republicrats said Iraq had WMDs and it is now confirmed that Iraq did not. Regardless, the American people gave the White House and the Congress to Republicans and they are the responsible party for the overt decisions relative to Iraq. Why stand for your party when your party was so wrong? Why not say, you know what, we made a huge error and we shouldn't have gone and we shouldn't be there. I suspect that some of you folks are more concerned about your party affiliation than you are about the well-being of your country. Cheney said there was "no doubt" he had them. Al Gore said "We know"(in the interest of bi-partisanship). The fact of the matter is there was a doubt and they didn't know. They were either in error and grossly incompetent or they were lying. The lives of 650,000 people have been extinguished another million+ have been inured and another 5 mil have been displaced from their homes. We have now lost more Americans in this fight than we lost in 9/11, we have spent trillions of dollars in the effort and what do we have to show for it? We control 60% of Baghdad and the rest of the nation is in a state of civil war. Woo hoo.

AlCIAduh are not mentioned one time in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. Many times the Authorization mentions Iraq's support of international terrorists. However, often times this support is mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph that says Iraq possessed WMD. If the intel was wrong about this or they lied about this, where is the proof that supports the allegation that Saddam supported international terrorists and would this support have been sufficient for the American people to support the Use of Military Force in Iraq or was the WMD thing the primary reason Americans supported Military Force in 2003? Regardless, where is the evidence that Iraq had anything to do with attacks on the United States of America? The only attacks against Americans of significance have been attributed to Al Quaeda so would it not be necessary to prove a link between Saddam and OBL before one could make a case for attacking and occupying Iraq? Btw...there wasn't a single Iraqi in the list of 19.

 

[carpro]

The lives of 650,000 people have been extinguished

Oh, Lordy! Not again.

 

[Dragoon68]

Oh, Lordy! Not again.

It's all our fault, Carpo! You know we're the world's worst enemy. It was the same story in that war we fought a long time ago.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Oh, Lordy!

Will you define "Lordy" for me please?

Not again.

Please elaborate. Not again what?

At your convenience, feel free to address the primary focus of the thread and discontinue your quibbling.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

We have found what remained of the WMDs. Olbermann even had to admit it, "Weapons of Mass Discomfort".....

We should have changed the U.N. charter to say....


"ehhh, errr, ummmm, OK, Sadaam can have a LITTLE BIT of sarin gas..."

Lots of conspiracies abound that in the much-publicized build up to the invasion that convoys were seen going into Iran, & Syria, but I guess those aren't very popular ones.

 

[carpro]

It's all our fault, Carpo! You know we're the world's worst enemy. It was the same story in that war we fought a long time ago.

I've definitely seen this act before.

It's no surprise that the same ones who fall for the 650,000 garbage are the same ones who mistakenly think the evil Bush Administration stated that Iraq had something to do with 911. :BangHead:

 

[carpro]

Lots of conspiracies abound that in the much-publicized build up to the invasion that convoys were seen going into Iran, & Syria, but I guess those aren't very popular ones.

They don't match their agenda.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I've definitely seen this act before.

It's no surprise that the same ones who fall for the 650,000 garbage are the same ones who mistakenly think the evil Bush Administration stated that Iraq had something to do with 911. :BangHead:

Which brings us back to the point of this thread which you seem to be anxious to avoid :BangHead: . If Iraq did not possess WMD and if Iraq had nothing to do with 911, why have we destroyed and occupied their nation? Why are their 14 permanent bases and an embassy rivaling the size of the Vatican on their land?

 

[Rufus_1611]

We have found what remained of the WMDs. Olbermann even had to admit it, "Weapons of Mass Discomfort".....

We should have changed the U.N. charter to say....


"ehhh, errr, ummmm, OK, Sadaam can have a LITTLE BIT of sarin gas..."

Lots of conspiracies abound that in the much-publicized build up to the invasion that convoys were seen going into Iran, & Syria, but I guess those aren't very popular ones.

Where did they get that gas?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I give up. Where did it come from ? And does who gave it to them have any bearing on whether they had it, or not ?