Marijuana.com

Buzzby

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

2) We were fed false information as the reason we had to invade Iraq. The current reasons for the invasion all came after the fact or were minor considerations tacked onto the WMD bullsh*t.

3) The Iraqi government was was not supporting international Islamic extremists nor were they a large presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

4) Either the President lied to us about why we needed to invade Iraq or he got us into a war based on faulty intelligence. Not acquiring positive intelligence before launching a war would indicate to me that the current regime is totally incompetent.

5) There is no indication that there is any progress in suppressing the insurgency. As we found in Vietnam, it is virtually impossible to defeat a guerilla enemy who strikes from hiding and disappears back into the general population. Unless we instigate a regime as totalitarian as Saddam's, with the power to invade every aspect of private life, there is no way to get a handle on the insurgency.

__________________

 

S2

1) and????

2)What is this "the" reason?

3)OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda- and whoever said there was a large number?

4) OK, if that what that indicates to you-- well good. What it indicates to me is that our leader recognized that in the event of error, it would be far more devastating to the contry and the world to err on the side of doing nothing than in doing too much.

5) Yes there is-- big time.

Niteshift

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Nobody is claiming a direct connection to it.


2) We were fed false information as the reason we had to invade Iraq. The current reasons for the invasion all came after the fact or were minor considerations tacked onto the WMD bullsh*t.

The other reasons were neither minor nor added later. They were there all along and listed before the war.


3) The Iraqi government was was not supporting international Islamic extremists nor were they a large presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

Iraq was supporting terrorism. Denying that ignores facts.

4) Either the President lied to us about why we needed to invade Iraq or he got us into a war based on faulty intelligence. Not acquiring positive intelligence before launching a war would indicate to me that the current regime is totally incompetent.

No intelligence apparatus is 100%. Anyone who thinks it is all so simple and easy clearly doesn't understand the intelligence field.

5) There is no indication that there is any progress in suppressing the insurgency. As we found in Vietnam, it is virtually impossible to defeat a guerilla enemy who strikes from hiding and disappears back into the general population. Unless we instigate a regime as totalitarian as Saddam's, with the power to invade every aspect of private life, there is no way to get a handle on the insurgency.

The fact that they are acting in a more desperate manner and trying more extreme measures, including venturing into other countries, is a strong indicator that they feel they are losing.

__________________
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.

ChronicSmoke7

"
The fact that they are acting in a more desperate manner and trying more extreme measures, including venturing into other countries, is a strong indicator that they feel they are losing"



Yea, more violence means their losing. It's not like al queda doesn't have support s in countries other than afghan and iraq.

killer12382

The vote was straight up BS. It called for an immediate pullout. Thats not possible because GW has made such a huge mess over there it would be impractical to pull out. Saddam was a dictator who did not share power with anyone. He had no ties to the Islamic militants as they considered him a sinner. Osama Bin Laden called for the ouster of Saddam numerous times. This war was strictly a personal issue with GW. Iraq wasn't into global terrorism but did have issues with their neighbors. One of my main problems with this administration is the way they try and label everyone that disagrees with them a traitor and a coward. And Dick Cheney has got alot of nerve calling someone a coward (Mr. 5 deferments).

 

Niteshift

He had no ties to the Islamic militants as they considered him a sinner.

That's just untrue.

Iraq wasn't into global terrorism but did have issues with their neighbors.

It was involved in global terrorism. The State Dept. has listed them as a terrorist nation for years, long, long before Bush took office.

And all the international terrorists found hiding in Iraq when we went in there, as well as all we've found at Salman Pak show that to be false.

Higher Logic

Yup!YUP!Yup!I'll take the first reason...YUP!

Well, I agree. On everything.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Higher Logic

I have articles that state they didn't have a connection. Your point? Bush sure did! I'm not even going to bother...That's not a reason for invasion.33% isn't exactly "good" intelligence either...

Niteshift

I have articles that state they didn't have a connection. Your point?

That they did have a connection...........and all the "articles" in the world won't change that fact.

Bush sure did!

If he did or didn't is moot. There was a connection between Iraq-al Qaeda and terrorism in general. I could care less if it was a direct connection to 9/11 or not.

I'm not even going to bother...

You're finally going to quit trying to perpetuate the false claim you've made repeatedly?

In case you missed it, the entire Congressional resolution passed in 2002 shows this was a reason. It also refers to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which "expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;"

That's not a reason for invasion.

It was listed as a reason and I support that reason..........so did Congress.

33% isn't exactly "good" intelligence either...

You can keep acting like Bush had only one report from one source, but it won't change the fact that there were a lot of reports from not only US sources, but other countries as well, even countries that opposed the invasion.

Higher Logic