Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: What's the reason we are at war?

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    still NO WMD

    (STILL!!!)

    No Connection between the Al Queda who attacked on 9-11 and Iraq

    No National Security threat against the USA posed by Iraq

    so why are we at war again? oh yeah to turn bagdhad into a democracy... yeah right - that will solve all the problems of the world - if we stay allies with the real terrorists like Saudi and Pakistan but attack the fake terrorists like Iraq. Makes sense to me. :blink:

    nothing like going to war to bring liberal democracy to animals - always a great reason to go to war

    ya see we drop cluster bombs and launch tomahawk missiles, also make Iraqi prisoners pose naked and simulate oral sex on each other and record it on film!!!

    that will teach them to be democratic!

    we kill and torture people to help them!

    it all makes sense to me now <_< :blink:

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,193
    Post Thanks / Like
    we are at war with Iraq b/c the neo cons who have somehow fenagled their way into power with the 2000 election have been arguing for this war for almost a decade..Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfiwitz, Donald Rumsfeld and dick Cheney (basically the people who rule this country)...
    These people have had a hard on for Saddam for almost a decade..They espouse a philopshy of pre emptive military action to change the middle east...Wolfiwitz and pearl have argued for regime changes in bagdad, demascus, ramallah and Tehran&#33;
    when 9-11 happened thier voices suddenly were screams and the american public fell for it...

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,193
    Post Thanks / Like
    not to mention the fact that defense contractor lobby has a HUGE voice in washington..A lot of people who hold power in this country will make a fortune off of post war Iraq contracts...
    and if they didn&#39;t have Iraq what would the bush adminstration do?&#33;

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,662
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually, we&#39;re at war because we were attacked on 9/11. That occured mainly because cowardly liberals like you two didn&#39;t heed the warning signs of the previous decade. Numerous threats and terrorist attacks against us during the Clinton administration and we did nothing. This inaction led directly to september 11. Your right by the way. If gore had won we never would have went to war in Iraq. Mots likely we wouldnt have gone to Afghanistan. I imagine his response would have been a clintonian lobing of some cruise missles. We were fortunate enough to have a President in office who had the moral clarity and resolve to take on our enemys head on. He took the fight to their countries instead of waiting for them to take the fight to us.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:27 PM
    [b] He took the fight to their countries instead of waiting for them to take the fight to us. [/b][/quote]
    yeah that&#39;s funny cause i must have missed it when we attacked Saudi Arabia

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,662
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+May 10 2004, 01:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ May 10 2004, 01:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--chiefst2000[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:27 PM
    [b] He took the fight to their countries instead of waiting for them to take the fight to us. [/b][/quote]
    yeah that&#39;s funny cause i must have missed it when we attacked Saudi Arabia [/b][/quote]
    If we had attacked SA you&#39;d be screaming about that too.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    When a chemical attack occurs in this country, it will be with love from Saddam

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    bull**** - i&#39;d be the first one cheering - those are the bastards who dropped the WTC not Iraq

    too bad people don&#39;t understand the difference between an Iraqi and a Saudi

    they are all towelheads to you right?

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,193
    Post Thanks / Like
    you are right..we were attacked on 9-11..and we started to fight back when we sent a whopping 11,000 troops to afghanistan to fight al qaeda and its Taliban protectors..
    unfortunately most of qaeda&#39;s 20,000 members are spread out across the world and bin Laden is a smart mutha****er.. he keeps releasing audio tapes and who know what qeada is planning now...attacking afghanistan is justified..

    NOw for Iraq...Cheney said it would be a cake walk and we&#39;d be recieved as liberators...so somehow Bush put the iraq war under the &#39;war on terror&#39; umbrella...even though saddam&#39;s baathist party is as far from islamic terrorists as we are..

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,662
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by pope[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:37 PM
    [b] When a chemical attack occurs on this country, it will be with love from Saddam [/b][/quote]
    I cant believe these guys are still screaming no WMD. The guy gassed his own people. It is indesputible&#33; The only question is where is it now.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by pope[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:37 PM
    [b] When a chemical attack occurs in this country, it will be with love from Saddam [/b][/quote]
    with love from Reagan, maybe - who sold him those chemical weapons in the 80s

    i&#39;ll give you a hint it wasn&#39;t USSR

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,193
    Post Thanks / Like
    the buushiites believe all evil stems from Saddam&#33;
    hysterical&#33;
    if there&#39;s a chemical attack in this country iyt&#39;s probably from chemicals mixed by qeada guys from biological agents readily available at many stores here in the US..

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 10 2004, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 10 2004, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pope[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:37 PM
    [b] When a chemical attack occurs on this country, it will be with love from Saddam [/b][/quote]
    I cant believe these guys are still screaming no WMD. The guy gassed his own people. It is indesputible&#33; The only question is where is it now. [/b][/quote]
    They couldn&#39;t be in Syria, made ready available for terrorists.

    Nah. Saddam would never have done something like get rid of them before the war, that would actually make too much sense.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,662
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+May 10 2004, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ May 10 2004, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pope[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:37 PM
    [b] When a chemical attack occurs in this country, it will be with love from Saddam [/b][/quote]
    with love from Reagan, maybe - who sold him those chemical weapons in the 80s

    i&#39;ll give you a hint it wasn&#39;t USSR [/b][/quote]
    Do you spend your entire day just blatantly making stuff up? You spread lies and pass them off as fact. You and your black helicopter theories have no basis in truth.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    so that&#39;s it then Pope lets send 100k into Syria and take that over...

    when the weapons move to Jordan we can invade them...

    and then Egypt

    and then Iran

    and then it will be the United States of Arabia, united under a banner of liberal democracy

    <_<

    it&#39;s just so simple&#33;&#33; all terrorism would stop, all we have to do is invade every country in the world, take them all over and then there would be no terrorism

    cause we all know terrorists really give a crap what government they are under

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 10 2004, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 10 2004, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -bitonti@May 10 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--pope[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:37 PM
    [b] When a chemical attack occurs in this country, it will be with love from Saddam [/b][/quote]
    with love from Reagan, maybe - who sold him those chemical weapons in the 80s

    i&#39;ll give you a hint it wasn&#39;t USSR [/b][/quote]
    Do you spend your entire day just blatantly making stuff up? You spread lies and pass them off as fact. You and your black helicopter theories have no basis in truth. [/b][/quote]
    ok cheif you do some reasearch RE; who REALLY sold chemical weapons to the Iraqis 20 years ago (cause it couldn&#39;t have possibly been the US) and then get back to me, if i am wrong i want to know about it.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,662
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+May 10 2004, 01:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ May 10 2004, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -chiefst2000@May 10 2004, 01:47 PM
    [b] [quote]Originally posted by -bitonti@May 10 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--pope[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:37 PM
    [b] When a chemical attack occurs in this country, it will be with love from Saddam [/b][/quote]
    with love from Reagan, maybe - who sold him those chemical weapons in the 80s

    i&#39;ll give you a hint it wasn&#39;t USSR [/b][/quote]
    Do you spend your entire day just blatantly making stuff up? You spread lies and pass them off as fact. You and your black helicopter theories have no basis in truth. [/b][/quote]
    ok cheif you do some reasearch RE; who REALLY sold chemical weapons to the Iraqis 20 years ago (cause it couldn&#39;t have possibly been the US) and then get back to me, if i am wrong i want to know about it. [/b][/quote]
    The US doesn&#39;t sell WMD to anyone EVER&#33; The Iraqis developed chemical weapond on their own.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:57 PM
    [b]
    The US doesn&#39;t sell WMD to anyone EVER&#33; The Iraqis developed chemical weapond on their own. [/b][/quote]
    you poor deluded soul -

    [quote][b]a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.
    [/b][/quote]

    [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/...ain534798.shtml[/url]

    [img]http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/jpg/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg[/img]

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,193
    Post Thanks / Like
    the US does sell chemical weapons and has even used them experiemntally..even on people with down syndrome...
    all the wolrd is the same...the us is just as good and just as evil as anyone else..


    eports.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul O&#39;Neill says he is going public because he thinks the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have been made.

    Will this be seen as a “kiss-and-tell" book?

    “I&#39;ve come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I&#39;m sure somebody will say all of that and more,” says O’Neill, who was George Bush&#39;s top economic policy official.

    In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

    At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

    This is what O&#39;Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”

    He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn&#39;t his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.

    O&#39;Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book&#39;s author Ron Suskind – and he adds that he&#39;s taking no money for his part in the book.

    Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book – including several cabinet members.

    O&#39;Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill not to do this book.

    Was it a warning, or a threat?

    “I don&#39;t think so. I think it was the White House concerned,” says Suskind. “Understandably, because O&#39;Neill has spent extraordinary amounts of time with the president. They said, ‘This could really be the one moment where things are revealed.’"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only did O&#39;Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

    “Everything&#39;s there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that&#39;s sensitive,” says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”

    And what happened at President Bush&#39;s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O&#39;Neill&#39;s most startling revelations.

    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

    “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    As treasury secretary, O&#39;Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

    "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

    He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    dunkirk, ny
    Posts
    3,243
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 10 2004, 01:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 10 2004, 01:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -bitonti@May 10 2004, 01:49 PM
    [b] [quote]Originally posted by -chiefst2000@May 10 2004, 01:47 PM
    [b] [quote]Originally posted by -bitonti@May 10 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--pope[/i]@May 10 2004, 01:37 PM
    [b] When a chemical attack occurs in this country, it will be with love from Saddam [/b][/quote]
    with love from Reagan, maybe - who sold him those chemical weapons in the 80s

    i&#39;ll give you a hint it wasn&#39;t USSR [/b][/quote]
    Do you spend your entire day just blatantly making stuff up? You spread lies and pass them off as fact. You and your black helicopter theories have no basis in truth. [/b][/quote]
    ok cheif you do some reasearch RE; who REALLY sold chemical weapons to the Iraqis 20 years ago (cause it couldn&#39;t have possibly been the US) and then get back to me, if i am wrong i want to know about it. [/b][/quote]
    The US doesn&#39;t sell WMD to anyone EVER&#33; The Iraqis developed chemical weapond on their own. [/b][/quote]
    have you ever studied history at all? and im not talking your bull**** sunday school either...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us