Why we are losing the war in Iraq...

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
There are numerous military pics of special forces riding on horseback side by side with the Northern Alliance within two months of 9-11.
Your statement is nice rhetoric, but completely false.
I see, a couple of horse soldiers are going to be able to fight off Al Quida. I see

. I agree though, we have sent troops to find Al Quida, but not nearly enough or as much as we have sent to Iraq.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by DW62
Almost all of the other leading nations of the world disagreed with this war, and found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...
...The reason that Al Queda are now in Iraq is because we are there. If we weren't, neither would they be....
More false information... The leading intelligence agencies of the world said Saddam DID have WMD's. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, etc. all said he had them. Again, the UN past 17 Resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm... We invaded to ENFORCE UN RESOLUTIONS...
Where would Al Queda be ya think if we weren't in Iraq?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
I see, a couple of horse soldiers are going to be able to fight off Al Quida. I see

. I agree though, we have sent troops to find Al Quida, but not nearly enough or as much as we have sent to Iraq.
Don't sidestep... Crimzy said we didn't have troops in Afghanistan.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Don't sidestep... Crimzy said we didn't have troops in Afghanistan.
October 19, 2001 we began sending in ground troops. Can you show me the pic of our troops there from before that?

 

[1journeyman]

Let's also not forget that Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 to bomb their "chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities".
Kerry, Gore, and Hillary all also said he had WMD's....

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
October 19, 2001 we began sending in ground troops. Can you show me the pic of our troops there from before that?
You realize that's 38 days after 9-11, right?

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
There was troops in Afghanistan, but not as many as we got in Iraq. War can be inevitable, but Iraq wasn't one of them, IMO.
If we put most of our effort into taking care of Al Quida, then there wouldn't have to be as many troops in Iraq, plus there wouldn't be anybody for Iran and all those Middle Eastern countries to support. They wouldn't face us in open war, America+Britian+the rest of Europe+Isreal+other countries such as Australia=total domination. Let's face it, if it weren't for Iraq, then Bush may actualy have some support in America and the world. Nobody is going to challenge a country that has half the world supporting them.
Afghanistan=Nebraska....Iraq=New York City...How many troops to conquer Nebraska??
We are taking care of Al Queida in Iraq. That's where they are flocking to. Even Iraqi's are fighting Al Queida.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You realize that's 38 days after 9-11, right?
Certainly not the "year" later you first stated.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by DW62
We are NOT the world police. I agree we should do our part to help protect a free world, but it is not our responsibility alone. Almost all of the other leading nations of the world disagreed with this war, and found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which became obvious to everyone later). Additionally, there has been NO evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected with Osama Bin Laden at all, in fact, intelligence report just the opposite, that Saddam hated Osama and wanted nothing to do with him.
The reason that Al Queda are now in Iraq is because we are there. If we weren't, neither would they be. We must also remember that most of the chemicals and weapons Saddam had for his warfare were provided to him by (gasp) DADDY BUSH!! Which brings me to the ONLY act of terrorism (if you could call it that) of Saddam against USA is that Saddam attempted to have Daddy Bush assassinated. President Bush's war against Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with WMD's, or oil, or freedom. It was revenge!
You should get a movie called "Bush's Brain". It's full of facts and interviews from credible individuals regarding George Bush and what he really stands for.
"I don't have a problem with a dictatorship, as long as I am the dictator"
-George Bush
Wow. Simply just....wow. Good talking points. No fighting that logic.

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Afghanistan=Nebraska....Iraq=New York City...How many troops to conquer Nebraska??
We are taking care of Al Queida in Iraq. That's where they are flocking to. Even Iraqi's are fighting Al Queida.
How many places can a man go to hide in Nebraska though? I would take a lot of soldiers to sweep Nebraska's farms. I lived there for a year, there were only two big cities and both were very close to each other.

 

[dw62]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
More false information... The leading intelligence agencies of the world said Saddam DID have WMD's. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, etc. all said he had them. Again, the UN past 17 Resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm... We invaded to ENFORCE UN RESOLUTIONS...
Where would Al Queda be ya think if we weren't in Iraq?
If the leading nations of the world agreed, then the UN would have sanctioned Bush's war. They did not. His small "alliance" was only a fraction of all the leading nations (and the smallest alliance of any war in history). Some of these countries, (such as Australia, France and Germany, to name a few) joined with the USA only because of their relationship with us, not because they agreed, and their assistance was minimal, at best. Bush has now torn that relationship to shreds, and is mocked by many of these countries today.
Al Queda was not in Iraq at all before this war, they were primarily in Afghanistan, with a small scattering in Syria and Saudi Arabia (where Osama Bin Forgotten is from). Saddam refused to accept them (I am not defending Saddam. He was a tyrant, just putting the truth out there).
As I said, get the movie. It speaks for itself.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
How many places can a man go to hide in Nebraska though? I would take a lot of soldiers to sweep Nebraska's farms. I lived there for a year, there were only two big cities and both were very close to each other.
How many soldiers?? When your doing this "sweep", how do you keep him from sneaking into Utah?

 

[1journeyman]

Again, changing the argument... you said other countries said Iraq didn't have WMD's. You were incorrect.
We can argue the war's justification if you all want, but let's keep clearing up the misinformation first. These talking points have been spun for years by Bush haters. I find it enjoyable to spread the truth...

 

[triga22]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
How many soldiers?? When your doing this "sweep", how do you keep him from sneaking into Utah?
Exactly, its not bush's fault there. Clinton called off the attack on him when troops were surrounding the hideout and knewand saw him there. His response being he wasnt a big enought threat. If he wasnt a big enought threat why would you be hunting him? Plus any terrorist would be taken in and done something about.

 

[dw62]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Again, changing the argument... you said other countries said Iraq didn't have WMD's. You were incorrect.
We can argue the war's justification if you all want, but let's keep clearing up the misinformation first. These talking points have been spun for years by Bush haters. I find it enjoyable to spread the truth...
Read the post. I said "most", not all. But you are correct that I am not a fan of Bush (I think I made that clear, and I state this "diplomatically". Everything he has done, from lying to the American people about this war, to violating our constitutional freedoms with these so-called "patriot acts", is against everything we as Americans stand for. And yes, even Democrats like Hillary Clinton voted for both the War in Iraq and the Patriotic Act. I understand her vote on the war, as she was relying on information given to her from the Bush Administration. I do not agree with her or anyone else taking away our freedoms and rights that were fought and died for.

 

[meleerock]

I find political movies obviously "choose" the information that supports their views, while ignoring all the info that dissagrees with their views. Media is biased enough, we dont need a Micheal Moore type movie brainwashing minds to make ones self look better in the eyes of the viewers.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by DW62
If the leading nations of the world agreed, then the UN would have sanctioned Bush's war. They did not. His small "alliance" was only a fraction of all the leading nations (and the smallest alliance of any war in history). Some of these countries, (such as Australia, France and Germany, to name a few) joined with the USA only because of their relationship with us, not because they agreed, and their assistance was minimal, at best. Bush has now torn that relationship to shreds, and is mocked by many of these countries today.
Al Queda was not in Iraq at all before this war, they were primarily in Afghanistan, with a small scattering in Syria and Saudi Arabia (where Osama Bin Forgotten is from). Saddam refused to accept them (I am not defending Saddam. He was a tyrant, just putting the truth out there).
As I said, get the movie. It speaks for itself.

Alliances...I get sick when I hear of relating how I should feel about if the rest of the world likes US or not. I really don't care. Our little alliance within, both Democrat and Republican, realized that something had to be done about Saddam. BTW, so did the rest of the "real world".
Dems say GW is a moron, but he must be pretty slick to pull the wool over their eyes on this one, eh. Master manipulator. Bwwwhhaaahhaaa.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by DW62
Read the post. I said "most", not all. ...
Correction, you said
Originally Posted by DW62
...Almost all of the other leading nations of the world disagreed with this war, and found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...
What "leading" nation said he didn't have WMD's?
Originally Posted by DW62
... from lying to the American people about this war,...
Did President Clinton lie when he attacked Iraq?
Originally Posted by DW62
... to violating our constitutional freedoms with these so-called "patriot acts", is against everything we as Americans stand for. ....
What provisions of the Patriot Act bother you? Wire taps on non-American citizens?

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by MeleeRock
I find political movies obviously "choose" the information that supports their views, while ignoring all the info that dissagrees with their views. Media is biased enough, we dont need a Micheal Moore type movie brainwashing minds to make ones self look better in the eyes of the viewers.
I assume you're referencing the movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. Do you know why Michael Moore did not get sued for slander from that film? BECAUSE THE FACTS REVEALED WERE TRUE. While the opinion aspect is subjective, even Bush couldn't argue with the facts.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by DW62
Read the post. I said "most", not all. But you are correct that I am not a fan of Bush (I think I made that clear, and I state this "diplomatically". Everything he has done, from lying to the American people about this war, to violating our constitutional freedoms with these so-called "patriot acts", is against everything we as Americans stand for. And yes, even Democrats like Hillary Clinton voted for both the War in Iraq and the Patriotic Act. I understand her vote on the war, as she was relying on information given to her from the Bush Administration. I do not agree with her or anyone else taking away our freedoms and rights that were fought and died for.
No, information handed to her by her husbands administration who called Saddam out as a major WMD threat before Bill was out of office.
I can understand if folks don't like GW because he is a lousy speaker, or he has beady eyes like a friggin' rat, or he looks too much like his Daddy, whatever. But the "Bush lied" crap is just that...crap.