Marijuana.com

Niteshift

I think you missed the point. The intelligence we had about global terrorism from 2000 is the same intelligence we were using to justify the war. According to the flawed intelligence we had back then Iran, Syria, and North Korea were all more of a terrorist threat than Iraq. That was the point I was making.

And I posted stuff from PRIOR to the invasion.

We were weak on intel in Iraq. Nobody disputes that.

Alright, then we agree. Iraq was doing on a small scale what Iran and Syria are doing to this day on a large scale. Explain to me why you think Iraq was a better target than Iran. Not an easier target mind you, but a better one.

While Syria is a more active threat, I wouldn't necessarily say it was a bigger threat. Saddam had a lot more resources at his disposal. An attack on Syria would have likely dragged Ba`athist Iraq into it and we'd have a war with 2 countries, not one.

Iran is a theocracy. An attack on them would be viewed by almost everyone as an attack on Islam. Take every arguement you've made about how the war in Iraq has increased terrorism and multiply it by 10.

Iraq had the potential to no only make an impact on terrorism, but make in impact on democracy in the middle east.

What's your point with this? You're upset at Saddam for harboring anti-Iranian terrorists?

If that was my point, I'd have said something about them instead of Turkey.

Sounds like Turkey should have dealt with their problem. As I recall they wouldn't allow us to move our ground troops in from the north on the initial attack. Obviously Turkey wasn't too worked up about the PKK.

they would have let us move troops.......if we had given them what they wanted. We stood firm and they backed off. So what?

I ask for reason and consistency. We invade the secular muslim country that supports terrorism on a small scale, but soften our tone with North Korea as they ship uranium to Libya? I don't understand the reasoning you use to make this 'ok' with yourself, but it looks like a big ol' pile of BS to me.

First, drop the Libya thing. "Coincidentally" after the invasion of Iraq, long time terrorism sponsor Libya decided to drop their WMD projects, drop their sponsorship of terrorism and try to re-enter the world of polite society. Sounds like Khadaffi saw the writing on the wall and wised up.

Second, I am smart enough to know that I DON'T KNOW everything going on behind the scenes. I'm smart enough to know that I don't know what leader is talking and which one isn't, which one responds to threats or to cajolery. Simply because I don't know the details of what is going on doesn't mean that it's the wrong thing.

You can call it "BS"........ I think of it as knowing my limitations. The one of the most important thing s to know is what you don't know.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

 

Hiz Highness

Your recent posts were citing from 2003.

While under sanctions an 2 no-fly zones? I don't think so. What makes you think he had more resources?

How does that logic work? The attack on Iraq didn't bring in the Syrian Ba'athists, why would Iraq run to the aid of the Syrian Ba'athists?

Oh, I see. Well, I guess Iran should have free reign to aid and arm terrorists any way they choose then. We better not cause them any trouble, it might actually be a hard fight. Let's stick to Iraq where we achieve little, but at least the body count is under 2000. We don't want effectiveness, we don't want justifiable, we only want easy.

So obviously Iraq harboring an Anti-Turkish group isn't a really good reason for us to go invade.

Your life would certainly be easier if I did, but no dice. Libya is a terrorist supporting nation that we know received uranium from North Korea. Do you really believe it was the only terrorist supporting nation to be supplied? Why is our army in Iraq to "save us from the terrorists" while North Korea is supplying uranium to our enemies, and Iran is training and arming them?

There's another difference between you and I. You're content to just "trust" that the reasoning behind the invasion is good enough. I want answers. I don't trust the government to do the right thing because they have a pretty damn bad track record. If Iraq is a better target than the big terrorist supporting nations (Iran), or the ones supplying nuclear material to these nations (North Korea) then I want to know why.


-HH

Niteshift

Your recent posts were citing from 2003.

But still PRIOR to the invasion. What part of that is confusing you?

While under sanctions an 2 no-fly zones? I don't think so. What makes you think he had more resources?

What makes me think he had more resources? Are you F-ing serious? Show me any reasonably credible source that shows Syria had a bigger military than Iraq. Saddam had a MUCH bigger military.

How does that logic work? The attack on Iraq didn't bring in the Syrian Ba'athists, why would Iraq run to the aid of the Syrian Ba'athists?

Syria doesn't have the military capacity that Iraq had. Saddam already had a beef with the US and proved he was stupid enough to go head to head with us. Syria appears to have a little more sense. I believe that Saddam would have loved the excuse.


Oh, I see. Well, I guess Iran should have free reign to aid and arm terrorists any way they choose then. We better not cause them any trouble, it might actually be a hard fight. Let's stick to Iraq where we achieve little, but at least the body count is under 2000. We don't want effectiveness, we don't want justifiable, we only want easy.

That's not what I said.

Iran will be handled by political change in the middle east and by isolating them.

So obviously Iraq harboring an Anti-Turkish group isn't a really good reason for us to go invade.

If it were the only reason or that was the only terrorist group saddam was supporting, I'd agree.

Your life would certainly be easier if I did, but no dice. Libya is a terrorist supporting nation that we know received uranium from North Korea. Do you really believe it was the only terrorist supporting nation to be supplied?

Did your grip on politics end at the start of the invasion of Iraq? Are you completely unaware that Libya has done almost a 180?

Why is our army in Iraq to "save us from the terrorists" while North Korea is supplying uranium to our enemies, and Iran is training and arming them?

the only way you can keep repeating this is when you ignore the fact that Iraq was hip deep in supporting terrorism.

Is "because it was easiest" really the only reason you guys have?

It's not the only reason......you just keep ignoring the other ones that have been presented.

Hiz Highness

Resources = military size? Wow, I must have missed that class.

If Syria has no real military capacity, and is a stronger supporter of terrorism, wouldn't that make them a better target? Hmmmm?

Time will tell.

What does Libya's 180 have to do with the fact North Korea was supplying countries like them with uranium. It's because Libya handed over the NK uranium as part of their 180 that we were able to determine it's origin. How many other nations now have this uranium????

But don't let that bother you, stay focused on Iraq, and their small-time terrorist connections.

I had no idea you'd be on my post so quickly or I would have noted that it had been edited. Anyway, I'm not ignoring the other reasons, I'm pointing out why they're stupid reasons that only work if you don't apply them to any other nation on earth.

-HH

Niteshift

Resources = military size? Wow, I must have missed that class.

I guess you did. how can you not consider a military as a resource?

Also, Saddam had greater financial resources.

If Syria has no real military capacity, and is a stronger supporter of terrorism, wouldn't that make them a better target? Hmmmm?

I didn't say stronger, I said more active. And that is debateable.

What does Libya's 180 have to do with the fact North Korea was supplying countries like them with uranium. It's because Libya handed over the NK uranium as part of their 180 that we were able to determine it's origin.

It has to do with it because you keep making an issue over what North Korea did in spite of the fact that the problem has been rectified.

How many other nations now have this uranium????

Enlighten me.

 

iGame3D

Hey you are finally right. I just thought I'd make it known, I disagree with you.


Yep, they were a sovereign nation.

Define freedom exactly? Some Iraqi's would say they were free, and others would say they were oppressed. Same thing happens in America, all right wing party line puppet scum are "free" and all drug users are oppressed. Guess I should call the UN and request an immediate "liberation". After all, its a well known fact since 1945 that the United States is in possession of WMD, and is in the business of selling such weapons to foreign countries, like..hmm Saddam Husseins Iraq.



Nope, had very little to do with it. The US signed a Peace Accord in France as part of an agreed "stalemate".


No I lived about 4 miles from ground zero, and I don't recall that bogus "pulled together" spirit at all. I will never forget all the American idiots buying flags, 90% of which are made in China and displaying them until they were tattered, torn, faded, and crusty with grime. I saw this very clearly as "oh please oh please don't come storm trooping down my door, I'm just a poor wage slave trying to get my green card"
Get rid of the monkey and his axis of evil in the white house and you might get a chance at "United" states again.


Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Murdock

Freedom, the ability to choose their own leadership and determine the direction of their nation. They will have the choice of the type of leadership and direction they want to go in.. and beyond that once the insurgency is crushed the true rebuilding will start.. look at where Japan and Germany are today compared to pre WW2.. Look at Afghanistan now compared to pre war there.. Sure improvement is slow, but we almost always leave a place better than pre war condition.. And when was the last time we used said WMD's.. on our own people or others? We're far more responsible and the international community agrees.

The Anti War movement during the Vietnam War was rather large, and absolutely did have an effect.. The way war works in a Democracy is that it needs broad support in order to continue.. otherwise Anti-War leaders will be elected.. thankfully the Anti War leftists were soundly defeated in this election.

I must have imagined it all.. Americans giving millions in support.. people holding benefits.. the President' approval rating in high 80's to low 90s.. Americans putting all things aside to support each other.. Your outlook seems overly cynical.. I saw people in business suits and street clothes working hand in hand with police and fire and anyone else who was out there.. What I'm saying here is, give President Bush the benefit of the doubt here.. We don't know everything and probably never will.. but this overwhelming hatred and vitriol spewed forth against the President and his Republican party and the people who support him is not going to help matters at all.. We're all Americans here, and we're fighting a common enemy, they want far left leftists dead just as badly as they want conservatives dead..

This is exactly the type of retoric and vitriol I speak of.. "Monkey"? Why do you refer to our President and leader as a "Monkey"? Don't you realize that in the majority of the planet if you used that type of retoric you would be arrested, probably tortured and then killed? Don't worry, in 4 more years we'll have a new President.

The Majority of Americans agree with my point of view.. Do you really think the majority of Americans are wrong?

Herb Ninja

What? I don't have alot of faith in the American populace, but I doubt the majority shares your point of view. Just because the majority of voters voted for Bush A) Doesn't mean the majority of the American populace voted for Bush and B) I doubt the majority of Americans think that opposing Bush means opposing freedom for Iraqis. But what do I know? Peace, HN-

__________________
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." -Ron Paul