Now theyre using the call records to track down the whistleblowers

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

And Valerie Plame's husband knew that, reported it, and then turned his back on the whole thing saying that he meant to say "Nope, no connection in the yellow cake deals to Iraq"

Anyway, don't mean to rain on your parade but we are 10 days away from WWIII. Earlier we promised our allegiance to Israel (Our stance since Reagan) and Abbas gave Hamas 10 days to recognise the Israeli state. Something they promised they would never do.

Ohhhhh shit. This can be bad.
 
Quoted post[/post]]
I'll make this short and sweet

We went to war with Saddam because he directly threatened us on Al Jazeera that he had weapons on US soil and loyal people to carry out attacks.

I've gone into more and more detail in the past on this forum, but it goes ignored. Back to your regularly scheduled horseshit.

Yes he did. We supported the war in Iraq because our president told us that they were a direct threat to America.

Now, were they? Seems that answer was no. Their "long range" missiles couldn't make it out of the Middle East, much less touch American soil. Had Iraq been a threat to America, I would have marched behind the President every step of the way but the fact of the matter is they weren't. All bark and no bite. Now the dog that has the potential to attack America and its allies (Iran) sees us busy dealing with a false threat, they call all our bluffs and continue on with the REAL uranium enrichment.

Then there's that thing about yellowcake. The president and his advisors KNEW the intel was false, yet they used it anyway. Downing Street Memo anyone? That even ties into all the Valerie Plame hoohah. We were told, by George W himself, that Iraq had uranium and the tubes to enrich it. The instant nuclear scientists (gotta reiterate this... nuclear scientists) heard what Bush said, they were in tears laughing. There was no possible way that the materials Saddie had could be used to enrich uranium and make weapons. Simply not possible. They could however be used for the development of weapons that he was allowed to posess.

But of course, they HAD those weapons. We don't have any proof, we don't have any solid evidence or even any photos of these weapons, but oh yes they had them. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Oh, wait... we do have proof... the goddamn sales receipts!

The President lied and used that lie to preempt an attack on a country. Isn't that illegal?

Hate to tell you this Cel, but you've been had. Hard to accept, but it's true.
 
I hate to break it to you Sabz but there was never any debate on Irag's "long range" missiles. The peace accord signed by Saddam in 91 with the UN said that Iraq couldn't have missiles with a range longer then 90 miles. The condition stated that owning missiles out of compliance with the 90 mile rule was grounds for military action in and of itself. Considering my friend was stationed in Kuwait one hundred and something miles away from Iraqi missile positions and were still getting missiles overshooting their location I would say the war was legal according to the laws on record.

You have been had by a liberal standard which accuses others of breaking the law and relies on the ignorance of the public to carry the day. It seems you have played your role nicely

And Cel I wouldn't worry about Isreal, they can wipe their ass with half the middle east all by themselves, nobodies gonna nuke them cause they know the US will nuke back lol
 
because Germany France and Russia were making millions of dollars a year in the oil for food scandal. There's a good conspiracy for you. And England, Australia and Japan are all there with troops on the ground (not to mention others). If you want to get even further into it the NATO treaty states that an attack on the soil of one NATO country is an attack on the soil of EVERY NATO COUNTRY. Funny where was France during Afghanistan? Never mind the fact they owe us 1.

Going to war with Iraq cause they had 130 mile missiles instead of 90 mile missiles is a bit overkill, the purpose of my illustration was to show that the war was by international laws legal.
 
Im not disagreeing with you, but NATO troops should be in afghanistan if they are in any country, the problem is, the attack wasnt [officially] government supported. NATO really cant do anything. Iraq never attacked a NATO country, so they have no obligation to be there because of NATO treaty. Their purpose their would be soley as UN peacekeepers.

I might have given the illusion that we were the ONLY people in iraq, and i know that we are not, just no other country is there with anything close to the same numbers as the US.
 
Please god, before you say "NATO troops should be _______" review what NATO troops are.

Look up East Timor. NATO is not our friend, not our ally, and definately not in the business of bringing freedom and independence.

Look, if Bush was such a bad guy, then don't you think we would have found WMD in Iraq? I mean if he's such an evil guy, and his cabinet are so evil - I would think that we WOULD "find" WMD in Iraq, even if we had it planted.

You're forgetting, or more likely ignoring, Hans Blix's reports of his inspectors "waiting for hours, sometimes days at the gates of a facility while trucks were brought in, filled, and whisked away before (they) could enter".

How about the gas attacks on coalition troops since the beginning of the Iraq conflict ? Those are WMDs.

And Iraq's threat is not about missiles - That's not terrorism. Iraq's threat about a jihadist carrying a dirty nuke into a major american city. That's terrorism, and that is why it is still called "The war on terror".

That fact is, for one reason or not, we have NOT been attacked on US soil - which means that Bush's plan, regardless of how much people bitch about being infringed upon, is working! You would think, again, that if he were such an evil guy he would stage all sorts of shit to keep us at bay and complacent. At the murmurs of liberals "This is bullshit" we would have had a mysterious "Attack" on, say, a NY Train station. But we haven't.

You guys are looking for reasons to call conspiracy or to call him evil - but those reasons are evading you because if he truly was the man that everyone says he is, we would be in a "V for Vendetta" type of lock-down. And for all of "his" government spying programs, his measures are not even 1/32 of Kafka, Machiavelli, Hitler, Pol-Pot, or Stalin. And regardless of the loss of american life (Which needs to be reiterated: Fewer americans die in Iraq / Afghanistan than those that die of violent crimes in Detroit) the effect that these lost lives have had on the world is profound, and completely ignored by the left.

And that's a shame. Because these people, whether they protect oil pipelines or water pipelines, whether they are snipers in Baghdad or guards at Abu Graib, they have had an effect on the security of the entire world.

You see, Jihad isn't against the US, particularly. It's against non-muslims. Which is why Spain, France, Sweden (Yes, SWEDEN!) and western Russia are plagued by it more than us.

They are not specifically fighting a war against the US. They are fighting a war against non-muslims. We knew this since 1979, or earlier. We have been lucky to have had the defense systems that Reagan, Bush and Bush have implemented to avoid attack for so long.

And they realise, and have stated flat out (Each of them) that America is MORE secure with it's liberties, than without. And they cited terrorism in Russia - where if you even walk up to a border checkpoint and look suspicious, you're shot dead. All of the evidence points to "More lock downs does not mean more security", and I'm so glad that Bush and his cabinet realise this.

-> Steve

Quoted post[/post]]
Im not disagreeing with you, but NATO troops should be in afghanistan if they are in any country, the problem is, the attack wasnt [officially] government supported.

The Taliban officially supported Al Quaida. Sharia Law and all, The Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan.
 
Quoted post[/post]]
exactly, thank you Senate, the more I argue politics on here the more I realize I'm not arguing against people who have different views, I'm arguing against people who don't know what they're fucking talking about.

And using a quote made 250 years ago about another, wholly different, type of situation is just crazy. If the first American government were around today George Washington himself would have sacked Baghdad, and that's if John Adam's didn't talk him into nuking the whole goddammed section of the world first. People caught detialing classified info the press who be hanged on the white house lawn...
wtf? you were agreeing with me? haha you were the one just talking shit about my avatar :p . naa j/k its all good. for the record i have no beef with anyone. i dont give a shit about changing anyones views or opinions or care that anyone understands mine.
 
Back
Top