Anyone Catch the Wounded Soldiers Press Conference?

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by jlabsher
A great nation doesn't invade another soverign nation unprovoked.

Is that a good enough reason?

It's a reason. I don't believe for a minute it was unprovoked. (And I guess I don't at all agree with the premise). And I don't mean the WTC or al-Qaeda. He's been bellowing about our doom for the last decade, tried to kill Bush Sr., shot at our planes in the No-Fly zone and executed Kurds and Shiites after the war, who chose to help the coalition enemy. His disarming was one of the conditions of the end of the Gulf War. He's permitted terrorist cells and camps to operate inside his borders.

I guess I saw two things happening - one was the return of another Hitler dominating the Middle East, completely willing to export dangerous WMD's and in the opinions of several *Democrats* up until about a year ago - dangerous enough to warrant some kind of intervention. The other one being a man assisting terrorist groups for attacks on the West.

Your bully example isn't quite the same, to me. More like, the kid down the block tells you every day, in school, that he is going to KILL you. That he DID kill another kid. That the cops won't do anything until he actually SHOOTS you first. And you just found out he bought a gun........

 

[SamSpade]

If WMD's are eventually found - in abundance - will that settle it, for everyone? Will it, really?

If the UN goes in, and after looking the situation over, declares that they were wrong, they SHOULD have been about the business of preserving the world for peace - would that settle it, once and for all?

You know, BEFORE the war began - we heard repeatedly about how long the war would be - just as we heard the doom about Afghanistan - and that the dead would reach a quarter to half a million, according to the UN. That the Iraqi army would fight in the streets to the bitter end. And when the smoke cleared, we'd routed the army who essentially RAN away because no one really wanted to die for Saddam - and Baghdad didn't take months or years but rather, *days* to take - all of the dire predictions were forgotten. True, the Iraqi people did not thrill to see us as quickly as was thought. The truth however was much closer to THAT scenario than the dire one predicted.

So what happened? We were told that we really LOST the war. We lost face with the world. We lost diplomatic credibility. We strained our relations. And that Iraq was actually WORSE off now than before. This in lieu of polls taken in Iraq where greater than 70% of the people are very glad the Americans showed up.

You know what I think? NOTHING will placate the naysayers. They can always find the storm clouds *somewhere*.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by http
Who cares? What does it have to do with 911? And who gives a flyin f$#&ck about the Kurds? When did they all of the sudden become my $87 billion problem?

Because YOU'RE the one claiming the WMD's aren't there, and it's all a bunch of crap. Clinton himself said on Larry King not too long ago that you BET they are there and it is just a matter of time before they are found.

Look, YOU brought it up. It's not my fault you can't follow this conversation.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by http
Who cares? What does it have to do with 911? And who gives a flyin f$#&ck about the Kurds? When did they all of the sudden become my $87 billion problem?

We don't so much care about the Kurds as the evidence that Saddam had WMD and wasn't afraid to use them. THAT'S our $87b problem.

The only thing Bush himself ever said about Saddam and 9-11 was in the SoU, when he said that British Intel said there was a connection.

Now. Had he ignored that intel and something happened, then you'd be saying, "Why didn't Bush DO something?" So now that he IS doing something, you want to complain about that.

The reason we went to war with Iraq is because Saddam Hussein wasn't abiding by the UN resolutions. In fact, he was getting MORE aggressive. Our last President shot a bomb at him for that exact same reason.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
The only thing Bush himself ever said about Saddam and 9-11 was in the SoU, when he said that British Intel said there was a connection.

Oh wait - that was the non-existent quote about yellow cake uranium and Nigeria. My bad.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by http
My point is it has nothing to do with 911, and was a horrible attempt at a cover.

When did Bush say the war with Iraq had anything to do with 9-11? Please find a source for me because I'm unaware he ever made that connection publicly.

And you lose the debate because you started the name calling.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by http
No, that was a personal attack because he/she made a snide remark that I was not following the conversation. He/she lost it there.

No, YOOOOOOOU lost it!

You wait right there.

I will. But I have to ask - please find me a speech or news source, not just an op-ed. K?

 

[Nosenheimer]

Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

:shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's a link that came from Nose's #2 link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3119676.stm

It's quotes by Bush that either support or refute the tying of Hussein to 9-11 - not sure which.

Looks to me like Bush is making a comparison, not a tie-in.

 

[SamSpade]

Ah, the name calling starts. The act of desperation of someone LOSING an argument. If you can't win with logic, try rudeness instead.

Where did 9/11 get into this? Are you claiming that someone HERE connected Iraq to 9/11? Or that Bush did? No one did. He didn't. He DID mention that it was part of the war on terror. "Terror" and 9/11 are not the same thing. I know people think they are, but they're not. "Terrorists" blew up the WTC. But not all terrorist are al-Qaeda. Anyone can be a terrorist, and Saddam posed a threat. You need expensive weapons programs to make some of these weapons, and you need to be either very rich, like bin Laden, or have a whole country to draw from, like North Korea or Iraq.

"Not to mention Gdumbya tried to convince us the we were invading Iraq for WMDs. Remember that crap?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

So sue me for being 'off-topic' - you brought this one up.

So - even AFTER posting this line - you believe there ARE WMD's there? Or was that 'crap'? If it was crap, you don't think they were there. Or that it wasn't a good reason to invade.

So you tell us THIS, and someone corrects you to mention that even Clinton said they were THERE. Hey, YOU brought it up.

 

[Larry Gude]

The facts...

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

The resolution stands on it's own merits, clearly, and quibbling over absolute facts do nothing but create a smoke cloud that may briefly cover up what Hussein was and what he was trying to become.

When the smoke clears, the resolution remains convincing and just and right.

You don't have to like it.

All we have to do is change the date to 1938 and the name to Adolph, Kurds to Jews and Serbs and Poles and Soviets and French...1933, Japan and China work well to...and people were saying the same thing: What business is it of ours? There is no imminent threat.

We actually have people who's real beef is that a tyrant is out of office.

Amazing.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by http
Hold on for a sec. Weren't you the one talking earlier about Al Queda training camps and Iraq funding terrorists???????

Again - a little explanation. We're fighting a war against terrorism. Al-Quaeda IS a terrorist group. It ain't the only one on the planet. North Korea is threatening terror as well, and they ain't al-Qaeda. They aren't part of 9/11. But they're dangerous.

Yep, you got it, they're further along in their weapons programs. But they're also *desperately* poor and they depend almost completely on China and some of their neighbors. Which means, you don't have to invade. Just convince *China* that they're dangerous. Convince *China* that some of their OWN terrorist problems might involve exported nuclear weapons from Korea, and they will turn the screws on North Korea.

The reason we haven't invaded North Korea is, it can be done WITHOUT force. 13 years of inspections, No-Fly zones, an trade embargo and one war made it clear - Saddam would rather let the whole country starve to death before he'd relinquish his precious weapons programs.

We haven't found the weapons yet - but we have found literally tons of documentation of illegal weapons *programs* being conducted right under the noses of the UN weapons inspectors.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Where did 9/11 get into this? Are you claiming that someone HERE connected Iraq to 9/11?

I did. Weren't there reports from several nations' intel that there were Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq? Or has that been taken back and I wasn't paying attention?

I also said it wouldn't surprise me if Saddam was funding Al Qaeda. But that was ME saying it, not Bush.

Anyway, I think all those Arabs are in cahoots. It wouldn't surprise me if the Saudis were harboring bin Laden himself.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by http
she just challenged me to find some connection between 911 and Iraq.

Stop right there, hoss. I challenged you to find where Bush connected Iraq with 9-11. so far what I've seen is the quote where he specifically said there was NO connection that they're aware of.

We can't even use their oil.

But I thought that's what the war was all about - blood for oil? :shrug:

 

[SamSpade]

I think I recall the same reports you did - somewhere in the mountainous regions along the border with Afghanistand, in the northern part of Iraq, they found al-Qaeda training camps. At least, that's what I recall. No link that I can recall put Saddam and bin Laden in cahoots.

But I think they tolerated each other inasmuch as they had similar wants. For bin Laden, it's religious hatred. It's Western decadence sullying the holy lands of Arabia. It's the immorality of the infidels spreading their evil culture everywhere. For that, the great Satan of the West - which includes the US but is the rest of the West as well - he wants jihad.

Saddam is much more secular. Well, AND a sadistic madman. Those torture videos. And his sons were worse. For him, it's revenge. Even BEATEN, he sent assassins after Bush Sr. once he left office and security around him was less than that for a sitting President. He may hate and distrust bin Laden - but that didn't keep him from displaying wall sized murals of the WTC burning, with pics of celbrating Iraqis. It didn't prevent him from gloating on TV about it. So I doubt they were closely allied. But it suited his purpose to allow them security within his borders to do as they wanted. I don't believe he was THE power behind it, but I think he would have assisted in any way he could. I seem to recall that some of the ID's of al-Qaeda operatives were forged ID's of dead Iraqis, some of them dead for many years. So I am sure he was helping them, even if he wasn't the main force behind them.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by http
Hell, Hussein for all we know may have been a really great guy!!!!

I'm sure that if you disregard anything ever published about him and all those Iraqis that have stories about him torturing and killing people, he's just a swell ol' fella.

This has been fun but I've got to go start dinner. See ya'll later.

 

[SamSpade]

"Blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter. Whatever smokescreen-of-the-week you people are supporting for Bush, NONE of it has come to fruition. The only FACT is that we are losing an average of 2 American soldiers a day, and have nothing to show for it. We can't even use their oil."

Yup - stuff like this happens when you fight a *WAR*. Not even the Democratic candidates think we should cut and run. Everyone believes we should remain and finish the job. Last time we left, Saddam slaughter tens of thousands of Kurds and Shiites. They're not going to let this happen again. You know, you'd think that's what liberals WANT - to be noble enough to stop the bloodletting rather than leave and say 'f*ck y'all, you're on your own'.

"The operative word is "they". No I don't think he had even a smidgen of weapon-grade nuclear material."

Talk to MI6. They disagree. They say he did. And a former flunkie of Clinton had tea with a few folks in Niger and believes and prints otherwise. Who is more credible?

"But if you call World War I grade mustard gas loaded in tipped Korean War aged howitzers, then yes he had them."

It's a LOT more than that. Hans Blitz said differently. He had tons of the stuff because the UN inspectors *destroyed* some of it. His concern was mainly - where's all the stuff that we KNOW he had, back then? Where's the rest of the inventory he had in 1998? Most of it is unaacounted for. Where did it go? We're supposed to believe that he kicked out the inspectors and then got rid of the stuff all by himself.

"And for the 58th thousandth f*&cking time, I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!! It is not worth 87 Billion Dollars and the daily lives of 20 year old kids from Nebraska."

You do know that the overwhelming bulk of that money is to PAY those kids from Nebraska?

The reasoning is, that once a democracy takes root in the ONE state in the Middle East, besides Iran, most likely to adopt some form of democracy - then all of the little tinpot rulers there will be deposed. A free Iraq has the potential of transforming the Middle East into something other than wall to wall Wahabism.

To use your reasoning, the fires in California were too dangerous to risk firefighter's lives. We should have just let it burn. That's what will happen in Iraq. Once Iraq can handle it themselves, we can be out of there. I think a year will do it.

 

[Ken King]

No, the soldiers are probably of average intelligence. Bush is the one with below intelligence. Bush has been handed everything he has ever had by his namesake father and namesake grandfather from Phillips Andover to Yale to the family oil business. He has never actually done anything on his own accord and running a country is not a good training ground. I just wonder when he's going to try to call time-out.

Attack his intelligence all you want but the fact remains that he was able to obtain the highest position within our government, not just any moron can do that. Though I do admit that the previous President didn't seem to have a full grasp of his faculties or he wouldn't have been horn-dogging with an intern. Where was your outrage for that?

Clinton did not invade Iraq. We actually sent very few troops into the country. Only enough to get soldiers around the borders away from Kuwait and establish the no-fly zone. 99% of the first Gulf war actually took place in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel, not Iraq.

What do you call it when you launch many cruise missiles into another country? Sounds like an invasion to me even if we failed to follow up with personnel on the ground.

However I can find hundreds of articles where troops have expressed their confusion and dissent for the war without the press leaning on them. Either way, I am saying you should support the ATTITUDES of troops in combat whether they are pro-war or not.

Do you think the troops are happy and fine with all the decisions that the civilian leadership make that impact their lives? If so you obviously don't have a clue. Also the attitudes of the troops don't matter, it's all about them carrying out their duty.

Bush I started the Gulf War, not Clinton. It was 90-91. Clinton was 92-2000.

As already pointed out, it was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the subsequent UN Resolutions that started Gulf War I. President Bush (#1) performed his obligated duties by committing troops to assist in the removal of Iraqi forces from the sovereign nation of Kuwait.

I guarantee you there are more terrorists in Frederick, Maryland than Iraq, and its been pretty much proven already.

Really, I notice that you don't throw any facts or sources up here for this. Another case of

Bush is going about this the wrong way. He is starting out going in, when he should begin in and go out. First thing is to kick any shifty-eyed Muslims out of the country and take all of the illegal Mexicans and El Salvadorans with them, just for Pete's sake. Then put ankle-bracelet lowjacks on the rest of the non-citizen Arabs, and we've got a start. And obviously, close the borders to any new immigration and make visiting so hard to do, its not worth it.

Which school did you study military tactics at? Whichever one it was I bet it was in France.

I'm not even so sure invading Afghanistan was necessary, although I admit I was behind it at the time. But in hindsight, after WTC, if you were Osama, where would you be? Afghanistan in some cave or a beach house in Chesapeake Ranch Estates?

I see that you also don't believe that Osama is still hiding out in the caves of Afghanistan? Where does your crystal ball say he is at? I suspect that he is still in those caves where he has allies and friends helping him out. The only other place he would probably feel as safe would be France.

And as far as going after people in other countries, I don't have a problem with that, as long as we have a good reason. Bin Laden was a pretty good reason. Al Queda operatives in Afghanistan, absolutely. Hussein was NOT a good reason. Not to mention Gdumbya tried to convince us the we were invading Iraq for WMDs. Remember that crap?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Congress determined that going after Hussein was good for protecting America. That is why they gave the President legislative authority to do so. The WMDs would have been found had we not been playing the hide and seek game that the UN inspectors and your beloved Clinton played for so many years.

Who cares? What does it have to do with 911? And who gives a flyin f$#&ck about the Kurds? When did they all of the sudden become my $87 billion problem?

$67 billion of that problem is for continued support of our military. $2 billion is for support of the fledgling Afghani government and $18 billion is for reconstructive efforts in Iraq. Congress approved it so there must be some value to it or they would have voted it down in a heartbeat. I would rather see money spent working towards assuring our security then have it doled out to others who do nothing for our nation but suck off of it.

Your arguments are laughable at best. Admit it, you just hate Bush and are stretching as far as you can to blame him for doing the right thing.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by http
No I don't. So I guess I have a clue.

No you don't. Changing tunes maybe, but still clueless.

I already said that. You need to go back and try this again. Your selective reading is getting annoying.

Good, glad I'm getting to you. And I read everything in it's entirety. Nothing selective about it, like your tactics.

Once again, I ALREADY POINTED THAT OUT!!!!!!!!!!

You did? Thought it was Vraiblonde that did that first. But that's okay if that is what you think.

That was in jest. You obviously don't have a full command over the English language to understand something tongue-in-cheek. The POINT is I guarantee we will find more Al Queda operatives in the United States (pick a place) than in all of Iraq. For facts, we have already found 19, dead, 3 in Virginia, another handful in a flight school in Florida. How many have we found in Iraq? But once again, this has no bearing on the conversation. We have since moved on to WMDs. Try and keep up.

How many have we found in Iraq? Couldn't give you a number, but we did find the training camp northwest of Baghdad including documentation for quite a few of them. Guess you weren't paying attention when that was brought up.

I understand that you might think you were speaking “tongue in cheek”, but it's obvious your wit and humor have a hard time following the words you type. And I am keeping up, but it seems I spend more time during the day working then some and wanted to cover as much of the discussion as I could now that I have had a chance. Must the discussion follow your time table?

St. John's College High School, Washington DC. (4) year military school.

Holy crap, I guess your ready to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. No real service, huh? You have no clue.

Nope I don't. I would put France on the list as well as Palm Beach and Chesapeake Ranch Estates.

Well then you would be spinning your wheels. He is still in that theater. Anywhere else and you can bet that someone would be collecting the bounty.

I know damn well you just did not pull a "would" in a debate. If memory serves me, that was in the top 10 carnal offenses in "Robert's Rules of Order".

Oh, please. Get over yourself already. Forums are discussions not parliamentary procedures. I notice that you don't deny that the lack of action is directly related to the difficulty in coming up with the caches of these type weapons that were “known” to exist.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Ken King
Holy crap, I guess your ready to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Okay, back to business:

Http, I guess I don't really understand what you're getting at besides you think Dubya is stupid. Could you please put in one or two paragraphs what you're trying to say so that I can get a better handle?