Will the Board Bushies ever admit Iraq is a mess?

[Pastor Larry]

Thanks Galatian, for proving yet again how dishonest you are. I posted a link from CNN that clearly says that the DIA did not contradict the White House. It is explicit and showed you that you were lying. Then you post a link to try to support you, and when you read it, you actually find that the report supports me. Once again, you have proven yourself wrong. Did you really think we weren't going to read the link?? You have done this so often it is now predictable. Very often, your "support" actually refutes you.

Consider this from your own link:

Although we lack any direction information, Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. Baghdad also probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent or stabilized VX.

So the fact remains that the DIA did believe that Iraq had WMDs, which is what Bush said. And both Bush and the DIA said they said they same thing. Your own link proves you to be wrong. When will you learn???

You are becoming more and more dishonest every day, and very few posts of your do not show this. It is sad that you are so deceived and misled, so unthinking as to continue down this line of argument. You are desperate and you are embarrassing yourself. You are wrong and you got caught. You owe this board an apology for your shameful dishonesty.

 

[Gershom]

Pastor Larry posted to Galatian:

You are becoming more and more dishonest every day, and very few posts of your do not show this. It is sad that you are so deceived and misled, so unthinking as to continue down this line of argument. You are desperate and you are embarrassing yourself. You are wrong and you got caught. You owe this board an apology for your shameful dishonesty.

Which is why I will not continue to converse with Galatian on this board or even read his posts. Time and again he gets caught lying and yet remains unrepentant. He has lied about me and to me, and when challenged to prove his accusation, he either runs off or rambles on.

Adios, Galatian.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Ha ha ha. If I were to buy a used car, I think I'd go to Galatian's lot.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Scott J:
-Everyone in a position to know thought Iraq had WMD's and intended to resume its development program as soon as the inspectors left.

-The fact is, that just as we haven't found WMD's, we haven't ruled out the possibility that they were hidden or moved to neighboring countries prior to the invasion. The one fact we know for certain is that Saddam NEVER accounted for all the weapons we knew he possessed after the first Gulf War. The intelligence Bush cited may have been true when he cited it. (I would suspect that this has something to do with our wanting to delay Saddam's trial).

The question has never been, did Saddam have WMD's. We knew he once had them, we gave them to him in the 1980's.

Originally posted by Scott J:
-There had been contacts of unknown nature between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime.

The US has had many contacts and contracts with Saddam's regime for many years.

Originally posted by Scott J:
-Saddam had a stated goal of fostering terrorism against the US and the west. (Confirmed not long ago by Putin)

People quite often ignore the fact that military realities limited the time Bush had to make a decision. He took the safer route of not waiting.

Saudi Arabia has fostered and trained terrorism for quite some time, will we be invading them too? What about all of the other terrorist nations? What about Ossama? Iraq was not part of the "war on terror", but was an invasion that the Bush administration had started planning back in 1998 and 1999.

Bush and PNAC have started the wheels turning in their goal of worldwide democracy, and has only increased the muslim world's hatred for America.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ha ha ha. If I were to buy a used car, I think I'd go to Galatian's lot.

And you would deserve what you get. It is quite humorous to see him still trying to peddle this line when it has been so soundly refuted in some many different places. Even his own "support" disagrees with him.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
The question has never been, did Saddam have WMD's. We knew he once had them, we gave them to him in the 1980's.

We also know that in 1991 he agreed to get rid of them and submit to international inspections. We know that for a dozen years he resisted inspectors, hid things from them, kicked them out, and ignored 17 UN resolutions. The fault for this war lies squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein.

The US has had many contacts and contracts with Saddam's regime for many years.

But quite clearly of a different type.

Saudi Arabia has fostered and trained terrorism for quite some time, will we be invading them too? What about all of the other terrorist nations? What about Ossama? Iraq was not part of the "war on terror", but was an invasion that the Bush administration had started planning back in 1998 and 1999.

Saudi Arabia has generally been friends with teh civilized world, unlike Iraq. Saudi Arabia is not under any UN resolutions, unlike Iraq. So there are clear differences which show the comparison to be invalid. That is not to say that we should not turn up the pressure on Saudi Arabia, but it is reported that Al Qaeda wants the Saudi royal family gone because they are not sympathetic.

In making these kinds of comparisons, it is more helpful to compare apples to apples. That way, true similarities and differences can be seen and dealt with.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Scott J:

...There are good and evil ideologies in conflict in Iraq and the broader war on terror. One side says that everyone should be afforded liberty, self-determination, and basic human rights. The other side wants to deny these things...

Then there's the side that says that it's not possible for Americans to insure the liberty of the entire world, especially when we are going down the tubes pretty quickly ourselves. Do you realize the cost in blood and treasure of implementing this impossible ideal?

Look what it's costing of both in tiny Iraq...and we're not even sure of a positive outcome at this point. Are you actually suggesting that Americans have a duty to insure the "liberty, self determination, and basic human rights" of "everyone"?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
Look what it's costing of both in tiny Iraq...and we're not even sure of a positive outcome at this point. Are you actually suggesting that Americans have a duty to insure the "liberty, self determination, and basic human rights" of "everyone"?

Isn't that what the UN is for?

 

[church mouse guy]

If the cut-and-run members of the Constitution Party got their way, the world situation would be a mess. Peroutka and Kerry both have the same idea about Iraq--cut and run.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ha ha ha. If I were to buy a used car, I think I'd go to Galatian's lot.

And you would deserve what you get. It is quite humorous to see him still trying to peddle this line when it has been so soundly refuted in some many different places. Even his own "support" disagrees with him. </font>[/QUOTE]Those two peas in a pod are buddies and they both sell used cars.

 

[church mouse guy]

Lady Eagle, you started this thread. Perhaps you should explain why cutting and running from terrorists would be a good thing if Kerry were somehow elected and then executed your program. Maybe you should change your name to Lady Isolationist.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Maybe you should change your name to Lady Isolationist.

Paleocons are not isolationists. The word "isolationist" is a pejorative term that is used to describe anyone who does not favor using America’s wealth and power or blood for their particular cause. Paleocons believe that the United States of America is the greatest nation on earth, that it should trade with all nations, that Americans should travel to all nations, that we should have diplomatic contact with all nations, and that we should have regular commerce and cultural exchanges with all nations. They just don’t believe in fighting foreign countries’ wars or paying foreign countries’ bills. That is not isolationism; that is patriotism, and that is Americanism.

SOURCE

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Well said.

 

[church mouse guy]

NetPub, you are misleading the American people with your words, words, words.

Isolationism is when the USA does not want to get involved in foreign wars and does not want to give allies and friends anything.

That was the situation in the 1930s during the outbreak of World War II, and that is exactly the same thing that Peroutka and the Peroutkistas like PJ and LE are calling for now.

Peroutka would not even send disaster relief to the nations hit by the recent hurricanes, yet people like you in Florida think that federal aid should be extended to you--and rightly so.

The Peroutkistas have a slogan--ME FIRST!

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
...yet people like you in Florida think that federal aid should be extended to you

You once again show how little you know!

I have yet to apply for or accept any federal aid, I moved to Florida knowing that there could be hurricanes, I don't expect a single dollar in federal taxpayers money to help me or my family.

I have seen many people abusing the federal aid here in Florida, people with no damage other than loosing their power, buying generators and sending FEMA the bill.

Try not to let your hatred for me cause to to throw false accusations at me.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

...There are good and evil ideologies in conflict in Iraq and the broader war on terror. One side says that everyone should be afforded liberty, self-determination, and basic human rights. The other side wants to deny these things...

Then there's the side that says that it's not possible for Americans to insure the liberty of the entire world,</font>[/QUOTE] I am not primarily talking about Iraq much less the entire world. I would be happiest if Bush's dream of a "free and democratic" Iraq were realized. However, I will be satisfied if the only result is that one less nation is pursuing weapons that can destroy American cities.

Do you realize the cost in blood and treasure of implementing this impossible ideal?

Yes. I am not aware of anyone including Bush that thinks the US should "liberate" every nation that has an oppressive government. But it is worthy to do what we can where we can and not leave a festering mess behind us when we act in self defense.

That was the unfortunate lesson of WWI.

The intelligence all the way through the Clinton years and leading up to the invasion suggested that Saddam was a threat.

History teaches that it is wiser to take out threats like Saddam and his two sadistic sons rather than waiting for their strength to grow. The Europeans refused to deal with Hitler. Many Americans thought he was a beneficial balance against the Soviet Union. The end result was a de facto policy of appeasement that led directly to deaths of millions.

Look what it's costing of both in tiny Iraq...and we're not even sure of a positive outcome at this point. Are you actually suggesting that Americans have a duty to insure the "liberty, self determination, and basic human rights" of "everyone"? [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

If our policy is to attack every nation that is "pursuing weapons that can destroy American cities", we'll make the world a bloody place, indeed. I have no knowledge of evidence that Hussein had intentions of attacking the USA.

 

[Rooster]

I have no knowledge of evidence that Hussein had intentions of attacking the USA.

Well , DUH... DO you think Sadam would run a television ad to warn us? Get real, the attacks on America that we Might recieve, are not as a result of this war, they were planning attacks on the United States long before we Bombed Islam, what did we do to deserve the 9-11 attack, were we at war then? In fact we most likely have detoured a few attacks as a direct result of this war.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
...yet people like you in Florida think that federal aid should be extended to you

You once again show how little you know!

I have yet to apply for or accept any federal aid, I moved to Florida knowing that there could be hurricanes, I don't expect a single dollar in federal taxpayers money to help me or my family.

I have seen many people abusing the federal aid here in Florida, people with no damage other than loosing their power, buying generators and sending FEMA the bill.

Try not to let your hatred for me cause to to throw false accusations at me. </font>[/QUOTE]Who hates you? Just because one resists your attempts to redefine the English Langauage according to your political party does not imply any personal feelings towards you. You are just a 1930s political isolationist, stuck in the Great Depression era.

 

[JGrubbs]

Who was born in 1976

LOL