Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Should We Be In Iraq Debate is Over

  1. #1
    This Made It to Press. This totally blows up the Democrat Argument That We should not be in Iraq becuase there was no imminent threat. I'm interested in finding out what Warfish, Shasta, Sec 109, etc think about this.

    If you feel we still had no justification after reading this, then whY? If he had succeeded in getting the weapons via the iranian and NK route (Pakistan) what was your remedy then? Was there an imminent danger if Saddam got them and if so what would you do to disarm him? Take a read and hope that Bush Team doesn't use this one folks.

    [url=http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_2445.html]LINK-ABC NEWS STORY: SADDAM OBSESSED WITH NUKES SINCE IRAN HAD/HAS PROGRAM[/url]

  2. #2
    I am calling you out Wartfish, Shasta, Sec 109 and the rest of you libs.

  3. #3
    being obsessed with nukes and actually having nukes (like North Korea) are two totally seperate conditions.

    I could be totally obsessed with bedding Selma Hayek that doesn't mean im a threat to Edward Norton. :lol:

  4. #4
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 12:47 PM
    [b] being obsessed with nukes and actually having nukes (like North Korea) are two totally seperate conditions.

    I could be totally obsessed with bedding Selma Hayek that doesn't mean im a threat to Edward Norton. :lol: [/b][/quote]
    That may be chief but you still haven't aswered the questions I posed to you and your ilk.

    While you're at it here's a few more for you:

    1) How is Kerry going to add 2 more divisions to the army when we can't meet recruitment quotas now?

    2) How is Kerry going to speed up the training of the police and army when the military has had to slow down the hiring and training as to better screen applicants to ensure we're not training Terrorists?

    And I'll reiterate my original question so you dont' forget. How would you have dealt with Saddam after he had the Nuke weapons?

  5. #5
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 12:47 PM
    [b] being obsessed with nukes and actually having nukes (like North Korea) are two totally seperate conditions.

    I could be totally obsessed with bedding Selma Hayek that doesn't mean im a threat to Edward Norton. :lol: [/b][/quote]
    Well, guess who isn't going to ever get nukes. Saddam Hussein, dicator of a major Middle Eastern country. Why? George Bush and the United States.

    I am, as always, grateful to our country and for our country.

    Save the jokes for less important issues, with all due respect.

  6. #6
    just cause Saddam won't get nukes doesn't mean the world is safe from rogue nuke attack...

    what about all the former soviet republics selling their fissionable material on the black market?

    we need to secure our OWN borders before we try to rebuild entire countries 6000 miles away

  7. #7
    saddam was no where close to having nukes...other countries are!
    you can prevent saddam from having nukes in other ways than turning hIS country into a cesspool...

    so know Saddam's obsessions justify war!!!!!
    we've gone from an imminent threat that required war with 48 hours to this!!!

    i love it...you stupid bush fans really make my day.

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST+Oct 7 2004, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST @ Oct 7 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bitonti[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 12:47 PM
    [b] being obsessed with nukes and actually having nukes (like North Korea) are two totally seperate conditions.

    I could be totally obsessed with bedding Selma Hayek that doesn&#39;t mean im a threat to Edward Norton. :lol: [/b][/quote]
    That may be chief but you still haven&#39;t aswered the questions I posed to you and your ilk.

    While you&#39;re at it here&#39;s a few more for you:

    1) How is Kerry going to add 2 more divisions to the army when we can&#39;t meet recruitment quotas now?

    2) How is Kerry going to speed up the training of the police and army when the military has had to slow down the hiring and training as to better screen applicants to ensure we&#39;re not training Terrorists?

    And I&#39;ll reiterate my original question so you dont&#39; forget. How would you have dealt with Saddam after he had the Nuke weapons? [/b][/quote]
    If your looking for logical thought out of the libs you&#39;ll be searching for a ling time.

  9. #9
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 01:11 PM
    [b] just cause Saddam won&#39;t get nukes doesn&#39;t mean the world is safe from rogue nuke attack...

    what about all the former soviet republics selling their fissionable material on the black market?

    we need to secure our OWN borders before we try to rebuild entire countries 6000 miles away [/b][/quote]
    That may be chief but you still haven&#39;t aswered the questions I posed to you and your ilk.

    While you&#39;re at it here&#39;s a few more for you:

    1) How is Kerry going to add 2 more divisions to the army when we can&#39;t meet recruitment quotas now?

    2) How is Kerry going to speed up the training of the police and army when the military has had to slow down the hiring and training as to better screen applicants to ensure we&#39;re not training Terrorists?

    And I&#39;ll reiterate my original question so you dont&#39; forget. How would you have dealt with Saddam after he had the Nuke weapons? [/QUOTE]

    my ilk? im an american citizen just like you.

    1) By improving morale maybe? maybe by cutting areas of bloat such as redundant weapons systems (Rumsfeld has been trying to do that for years) frankly I don&#39;t know all the answers but alot of the current military is disenchanted serving under bush... alot of those military votes coming back will not be for George and deep down i think you know that&#39;s the truth.

    2) He&#39;s probably not. What&#39;s your point that Kerry&#39;s full of s**t? being full of bull**** is a job requirement for president of the US, and has been for the last 50 years.

    as for your original question, saddam&#39;s nukes can only go as far as their delivery system will take them, meaning a threat to Israel, but not the USA. as far as other nukes getting smuggled into the US that&#39;s a HUGE problem that Bush ignores. The former soviet republics are selling their fissionable material on the black market and that doesn&#39;t have a damn thing to do with whether democracy is the government of choice in Iraq or Iran.

    [/QUOTE]

    O.k.

    1) Kerry has stated that he would add two divisions (that&#39;s 20-25k soldiers). He hasn&#39;t said anything resembling stretegic redeployment of resources as you speculate. If that&#39;s his plan, well let&#39;s hear it in more detail instead of his unspecific promises. Politicians are allowed to do that way too often, this may be a time where we are talking literally about life and death and specifics are a requirement. I mean he could say he is going to cut down on greenhouse gases and meaning he is going to sell one of his wife&#39;s SUVS that get 5 mpg.

    As far as morale goes, let&#39;s say you know troopers intimately that have served there. It sucks to get shot at and I am sure there are troops that are unhappy being there; there were in WWII when there was no doubt we wrer in danger as a nation. SO WHAT &#33;&#33;

    I happen as a matter of coincidence to have two cousins that spent time there in the airforce and in the rangers. Both of them were scared and unhappy to be there but do not doubt that we are up against evil and that we did right.


    2) If you know that Kerry is full of s**t and that all his points are baseless then why are you wasting your time with the discussion? What are you going to make your vote based upon? Also, it is because of people like you that politicians are able to get away with lying. HOW ABOUT SHOWING SOME character by demanding better of your leaders.

    If you are so concerned about nukes and the lives of americans how could you vote for someone that flat out lies? How do you know he will take the necessary steps to protect us against the suitcase nukes? Are you basing your hunch on his 20 year track record of voting against the weapons systems employed to defend our nation today?


    As far as the weapons systems able to deploy the nukes. Maybe you have read a little about the missles that the north koreans have and the warheads. How about the Iranians and their claim to have a missle with a range of 1250 miles (enough to hit israel), according to the article i posted Saddam himself was cognizant of Iran&#39;s nuclear efforts and needed his own program. Do you think that North Korea wiuld not sell the technology to Iraq that it sold to Iran? If so what is the basis of you hypothesis?


    As far as your claim that Bush isn&#39;t doint anything to stop fissionable material from leaving the soviet republics, well that just plain untrue (are you praticing to emulate your boy Kerry?) Besides the researcing of technology to pick up radioactivity on barges ebtering our ports already being deployed by Homeland Security at our ports it has actually been demonstrated to have worked when boats going to the middle east to Libya with nuke material were found using the tech.

    Lastly to rebut your claimregarding the m=no-action to prevent the sale of unguarded nuke material- wrong again, the DOE has a program in which they are securing plutonium, etc in the former soviet republics and bringing it to secure sites here in the U.S. for disposal.

    No hard feelings...but I think you have had your feet cut from under pal. Could it be that Kerry just wants power and he doesn&#39;t care how he gets it? If so, we are in troiuble as a nation f he is elected.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    It may have been a good thing if Saddam had nukes. If what is being reported that they were to protect themselves from Iran. We could have left the 2 alone and killed 2 birds with 1 stone.

    The world may be safer without Saddam, but it would be even safer without Iraq or Iran. Think of all the glass we could salvage once the radiation went down.

  11. #11
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 02:34 PM
    [b] It may have been a good thing if Saddam had nukes. If what is being reported that they were to protect themselves from Iran. We could have left the 2 alone and killed 2 birds with 1 stone.

    The world may be safer without Saddam, but it would be even safer without Iraq or Iran. Think of all the glass we could salvage once the radiation went down. [/b][/quote]
    Thanks friend. By answering like you did you have proven that either 1) you cannot rebut my narrative and all it&#39;s point and so you do the typical liberal thing by either posing a dark and ignorant joke or accusing someone of being prejudice 2) you are just not informed enough to continue the discussion.


    Now go play with your bong like a good teenager and leave the adults to discuss things. Someday when you grow up you&#39;ll understand. :P
    Factcheck.org my friend&#33;&#33;

    "Knowledge Is Power" - MLK

    "The truth will set you free"- ME

  12. #12
    [quote][i]Originally posted by ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 02:29 PM
    [b]

    As far as the weapons systems able to deploy the nukes. Maybe you have read a little about the missles that the north koreans have and the warheads. How about the Iranians and their claim to have a missle with a range of 1250 miles (enough to hit israel), according to the article i posted Saddam himself was cognizant of Iran&#39;s nuclear efforts and needed his own program. Do you think that North Korea wiuld not sell the technology to Iraq that it sold to Iran? If so what is the basis of you hypothesis? [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b]HOW ABOUT SHOWING SOME character by demanding better of your leaders. [/b][/quote]

    ya mean better than a C minus average? :lol:

    looking at your quote, last time i checked Israel was not a State in the Union. like i said any nuke threat is only as good as it&#39;s delivery system. Iraq is 6000 miles away.

  13. #13
    [quote][b]I am calling you out Wartfish[/b][/quote]

    Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India all were"Obsessed" with Nukes too, did we invade them?

    Iran and Pakistan are both supporters of terrorism, did we invade them?

    India and Pakistan actually have and have tested viable nuclear weapons, have we invaded them?

    Iran and North Korea are so close to having weapons that they will likely be nuke capable within 1-2 years, have we (or will we) invade them?

    Call me out all you like, the choice of Iraqi invasion was a poor one for a number of reasons, timing being a major one in my view, and the tactics used once there have been poor at best.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]1) How is Kerry going to add 2 more divisions to the army when we can&#39;t meet recruitment quotas now?

    2) How is Kerry going to speed up the training of the police and army when the military has had to slow down the hiring and training as to better screen applicants to ensure we&#39;re not training Terrorists?
    [/b][/quote]

    1) How the F am I supposed to know. He hasn&#39;t told the public. All that I know is that there is no way he could possibly F up more than George "this work is hard" Bush. When it comes down to it, in my mind W is a complete and utter failer as President. John Kerry, in my mind, is nothing special, but I have a lot more faith in him. Something has to change. I know with Kerry that there won&#39;t be any right-wing judges appointed to the supreme court. I know there will be no John Ashcroft/Karl Rove/Dick Cheney types in the cabinet. I know that we will not invade a country to secure oil reserves and to hand out multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts. I know that John Kerry will not look like a F&#39;ing moron to the rest of the world. John Kerry will try to repair relationships rather than creating new foes.

    Once again, John Kerry is not my hero, but there is no possible way he could be worse than the worthless sack of crap in the whitehouse now who I wouldn&#39;t put in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone leader of the free world.

    2) See Above.


    (btw you are calling Cheifs and Warfish out, yet they are on your side.)

  15. #15
    [quote][b]1) How is Kerry going to add 2 more divisions to the army when we can&#39;t meet recruitment quotas now?[/b][/quote]

    Who says Kerry is right? You labeled ME a liberal Democrat. I don;t see myself that way at all, and I have no intention of voting Democrat, as I have said a number of times. Just because I criticise GW&#39;s poor (in my view) wartime decision making, doesn&#39;t mean Kerry is a better choice.

    [quote][b]2) How is Kerry going to speed up the training of the police and army when the military has had to slow down the hiring and training as to better screen applicants to ensure we&#39;re not training Terrorists?[/b][/quote]

    See #1 Above.

    [quote][b]And I&#39;ll reiterate my original question so you dont&#39; forget. How would you have dealt with Saddam after he had the Nuke weapons? [/b][/quote]

    The same way GW Bush will have to deal very shortly with North Korea and Iran, I guess.....

  16. #16
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 03:08 PM
    [b] [quote][b]1) How is Kerry going to add 2 more divisions to the army when we can&#39;t meet recruitment quotas now?[/b][/quote]

    Who says Kerry is right? You labeled ME a liberal Democrat. I don;t see myself that way at all, and I have no intention of voting Democrat, as I have said a number of times. Just because I criticise GW&#39;s poor (in my view) wartime decision making, doesn&#39;t mean Kerry is a better choice.

    [quote][b]2) How is Kerry going to speed up the training of the police and army when the military has had to slow down the hiring and training as to better screen applicants to ensure we&#39;re not training Terrorists?[/b][/quote]

    See #1 Above.

    [quote][b]And I&#39;ll reiterate my original question so you dont&#39; forget. How would you have dealt with Saddam after he had the Nuke weapons? [/b][/quote]

    The same way GW Bush will have to deal very shortly with North Korea and Iran, I guess..... [/b][/quote]
    Which is? Do you mean we will have to take military action possibly? Well dont you think it better to take action against an enemy before they have the ability to hit back.

  17. #17
    powell.."George, iran, iraq, pakistan, lybia, north korea..they are all threats..why do you insist on an IRAQ invasion"


    CHENEY:" Iraq has the second largest oil reserves and is 16th in production..act NOW or our supporters lose the contract"

  18. #18
    [quote][b]Which is? Do you mean we will have to take military action possibly? Well dont you think it better to take action against an enemy before they have the ability to hit back. [/b][/quote]

    I don&#39;t know. But I do hope we don&#39;t have to invade every country we perceive as a threat. We&#39;ll be fighting a heck of alot of wars in the near future if that is our only viable option.

  19. #19
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 03:56 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Which is? Do you mean we will have to take military action possibly? Well dont you think it better to take action against an enemy before they have the ability to hit back. [/b][/quote]

    I don&#39;t know. But I do hope we don&#39;t have to invade every country we perceive as a threat. We&#39;ll be fighting a heck of alot of wars in the near future if that is our only viable option. [/b][/quote]
    I agree it is a sad state of affairs when the only option is war and people will die. Throughout recent history (20th century) evil has reared it&#39;s ugly head and wars were fought to maintain our freedom. In this case we will be fighting to change the complexion of the middle east, the average arab hates america, not knowing why most of the time, but becuase they are taught do so. We have to fight the leaders and unfortunate sheep on their turf hoping to prevent them from putting an end to life.... not life as we know it.

    It may unfortunately mean another full scale world war. It is scary to think about it, which is why I suspect that so many of us here are rationalizing why we shouldn;t be there because in our hearts we know we have reached a watershed time in our history.

    I would cite concerns of an appocalypse ala the bible, torah, etc. but i know many of you godless folks would immediately discount my arguement as that of a fanatic. Not true as I am not sure I truly believe in God but i do know history repeats itself and we are damned to hell if we don&#39;t confront it instead of hiding from it.

  20. #20
    [quote][i]Originally posted by ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST[/i]@Oct 7 2004, 04:19 PM
    [b] I would cite concerns of an appocalypse ala the bible, torah, etc. but i know many of you godless folks would immediately discount my arguement as that of a fanatic. Not true as I am not sure I truly believe in God but i do know history repeats itself and we are damned to hell if we don&#39;t confront it instead of hiding from it. [/b][/quote]
    this has always been a concern of mine - full scale world war is more than just "scary" especially when it&#39;s not even necessary

    the people the ME know why they hate us... it&#39;s because of oil and Israel...

    the book of revelations has some very specific things to say about fighting in the ME... and here is Bush who claims to be a Christian, making it happen... pushing it along as it were...

    im sorry just cause you are saved doesn&#39;t mean you should induce the apoloypse... it&#39;s poor form

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