The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2014, 08:53 PM   #576
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
The US won, moron. As I detailed above, Obama lost it.
We never "won" in Iraq. Not even close.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:00 PM   #577
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,479

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
The US won, moron. As I detailed above, Obama lost it.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:00 PM   #578
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,479

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
There were WMD's. ISIS just took over Saddam's chemical weapon's compound.
.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:21 PM   #579
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
We never "won" in Iraq. Not even close.
Bush and Cheney accomplished their mission, which was to depose a known tyrant in Hussein, and establish democratic elections.

I didn't vote for those guys, but I get really sick of the lies that Socialists say about them. Whether you voted for the war (like Hillary Clinton), or were against it, there are compounds full of chemical weapons. Just because the Iraq War went out of style, doesn't change the fact that Congress approved it. Democrats became ashamed that they supported the war, and looked for a way to absolve themselves of it by saying they were 'lied' to. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are every bit as responsible for going to war in Iraq as anybody else who voted for or supported it.

It's a lie to say that there weren't chemical weapons in Iraq. They are still there! I'll call people out on it anytime. 'Truth' is not fashioned in revisionist history in order to make yourself look better, contrary to what Hillary Clinton would like everyone to believe.

Last edited by pricejj; 06-21-2014 at 12:20 AM..
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:36 PM   #580
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,210

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-a-good-idea/

The Cheneys sound just like Beavis, cutthemdown, pricejj, and barryr!
As your Boyfriend in Chief tells us "It's not my fault we don't still have troops stationed in Iraq!"

Smells like Team Spirit Up in Here.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 10:45 PM   #581
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

Price is right they found plenty of chemical weapons like Obama said Syria had to get rid of or face a talking to! Who cares anyways Saddam needed to go and Bush got it done. He made huge mistakes in the reconstruction though.

But Obama's mistakes in the region are so funny it's becoming a huge joke. 8 yrs a joke starring Obama!
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 05:16 AM   #582
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

We didn't go into Iraq for stash of chemical weapons(everybody knew about)that were sealed 20 years ago. We went there cause of his supposed ability to hit us with nukes.

I'm so sorry the dumbasses around here won't get their told you so moment. When you have Fox News calling out Cheney & others, you know there's nothing that can save the GWB regimes reputation.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 05:29 AM   #583
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
All the left can say is there were no WMD. But if you go back to that time there was much more Saddam had done that warranted his removal.

Bush and Cheney should have never relied so much on WMD because they knew the reasons went far beyond that. He was paying terrorists to attack Israel and was the only country in the region to have invaded countries twice under his leadership. Iran and Kuwait. He shot at UN mandated jets in a no fly zone. He fouled the gulf and set more fires then arsonist on crack. He deserved to go more than any dictator around and got what he needed to get.

Bush's other big mistake was disbanding the army and setting our troops out to get blown up. Also not taking all the oil we needed to pay for it. I was very pissed about Cheney saying we could make the money back in oil and we never did. That is some ****ed up ****. War with no spoils. ****ing BS. That isn't how we built our power.

But Obama's ****ups are on a whole other level.
they relied on the WMD, cause it was the only way they could justify an invasion. Sorry,but being a "bad guy" is not a justification.
Being a "bad guy" is just the sorry excuse those on the right have for being so wrong.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 05:59 AM   #584
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,975

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

The view from an Iraqi:

Nowhere did I hear a good word about the country's politicians. There was deep mistrust for the authority. The Shiites who dug up the bones of their loved ones hated Saddam's regime or any Sunni ruler that may come after him. The Sunnis I used to hang out with resented the country's new Shiite politicians and called them traitors, American agents and Iranian puppets.

The suspicion between Shiites and Sunnis is obviously historical, but Iraq's modern army in the past several decades has also played a key role in deepening the grudge. Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis have firsthand experience with the army. They know how it is a tool in the hands of the government and how merciless it can be when it has to suppress one group or another.

That is why Iraq's Shiites and Kurds revolted against Saddam's army whenever they had a chance and why the Sunnis have been hunting Iraqi soldiers without mercy. When I was covering the war in Baghdad several years ago, almost everyday an army recruitment center was car bombed, and I would see the torn bodies of young recruits in the aftermath. Even from the very beginning of the insurgency, the army was the main target. I saw how inhumanely Shiite soldiers treated Sunni prisoners and how gruesomely Sunni militants killed Shiites.

That animosity has dragged on until today and that is why the ISIS fighters have such an easy time in the Sunni areas. Ordinary people in Mosul or Falluja may not like the group's interpretation of Islam, but they see it as fighting an army dominated and run by Shiites.

The Kurds for their part, cannot even stand the thought of Iraqi soldiers stepping on their land. At the same time they feel betrayed by how they helped rebuild Iraq after 2003 but were gradually shunned out of government posts and finally their share of the budget was cut by Baghdad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ayub-n...b_5508207.html
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 06:38 AM   #585
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

how history is rewritten. WMD also includes chemical and biological weapons, the ones Hussein used on Iran and even his own people. But now, it's just about "nukes." But anyway, Obama's team was calling Iraq a success for them, so when you decide to own it, you have to live with the failures too. That's common sense for one, and being an adult on the other, which most liberals seem have troubles with the latter.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 06:41 AM   #586
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,975

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryr View Post
how history is rewritten. WMD also includes chemical and biological weapons, the ones Hussein used on Iran and even his own people. But now, it's just about "nukes." But anyway, Obama's team was calling Iraq a success for them, so when you decide to own it, you have to live with the failures too. That's common sense for one, and being an adult on the other, which most liberals seem have troubles with the latter.
Every barryr post is exactly the same, regardless of the subject, regardless of the issue:

"Them damn libruls!... libruls!... libruls!..."

It's like my neighbor's terrier. Every time they put him outside he just yips and yips and yips, until they let him back in.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 07:30 AM   #587
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,479

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryr View Post
how history is rewritten. WMD also includes chemical and biological weapons, the ones Hussein used on Iran and even his own people. But now, it's just about "nukes." But anyway, Obama's team was calling Iraq a success for them, so when you decide to own it, you have to live with the failures too. That's common sense for one, and being an adult on the other, which most liberals seem have troubles with the latter.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 08:50 AM   #588
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryr View Post
how history is rewritten. WMD also includes chemical and biological weapons, the ones Hussein used on Iran and even his own people. But now, it's just about "nukes." But anyway, Obama's team was calling Iraq a success for them, so when you decide to own it, you have to live with the failures too. That's common sense for one, and being an adult on the other, which most liberals seem have troubles with the latter.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 10:12 AM   #589
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
they relied on the WMD, cause it was the only way they could justify an invasion. Sorry,but being a "bad guy" is not a justification.
Being a "bad guy" is just the sorry excuse those on the right have for being so wrong.
I'm confused was it ok to help overthrow Libya because it was easier? or if France takes the lead it makes it ok to help them do it? or Syria? It's ok to get involved and try to help overthrow someone by giving weapons to rebels? But not ok to do it yourself right?

So for you it's all about how many troops we might lose but not whether its ok to get rid of a bad guy? I'm confused.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 10:14 AM   #590
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

By now Saddam would have already invaded someone again. Hell he averaged about 1 every 20 yrs right?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 10:38 AM   #591
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Sometimes rand paul can make a lot of sense. Just watched part of an interview with with him in where he says he blames none of the chaos on Obama. He blames it on the Iraq war and those who supported it and blames them for emboldening Iran.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 10:40 AM   #592
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'm confused was it ok to help overthrow Libya because it was easier? or if France takes the lead it makes it ok to help them do it? or Syria? It's ok to get involved and try to help overthrow someone by giving weapons to rebels? But not ok to do it yourself right?

So for you it's all about how many troops we might lose but not whether its ok to get rid of a bad guy? I'm confused.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 10:44 AM   #593
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Funny to see the left run to Cheney to try and make Obama look good. ****ing joke.
Run to Cheney? lol. Cheney and all the neocons who created this mess, and were catastrophically wrong on just about everything, are all over Fox News and other outlets criticizing Obama but offering no reasonable solutions. Just like you and your buddies here in the WRP. So there's no running to anyone.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 10:45 AM   #594
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'm confused...
Yes. Yes you are.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 11:44 AM   #595
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 35,946

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

Obama has had a below average foreign policy but this is almost all on Bush. We don't get to radical Islamists controlling the country and their resources without Saddam being toppled.

Getting rid of tyrants and promoting democracies are awful reasons to upset stability. Tyrants are everywhere in every country and it isn't in US interests to promote democracies in areas where certain voting populaces will vote in ways that will be harmful to US interests. I'd rather have a murderous tyrant than a democracy if it's a friendly or at least non threatening murderous tyrant. I don't much care about making sure these countries have the right to self determination, freedoms or other syrupy stupid bull****. Everything has to be based on realism and protecting US interests. If you want to feel like you are the good guy, go read a Marvel comic book about an action hero. Foreign policy doesn't work like comic books. It's not about values, it's only about interests.

ISIS leaders and groups need to be targeted for assassinations by our "advisers". We can't let them take over those resources.
__________________


BRING BACK BUTCH

Last edited by SoCalBronco; 06-21-2014 at 11:46 AM..
SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 11:48 AM   #596
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
We didn't go into Iraq for stash of chemical weapons(everybody knew about)that were sealed 20 years ago. We went there cause of his supposed ability to hit us with nukes.
My understanding is that Saddam's removal by military force was due to

A) His history of unjustified invasions of his neighbors (attempting to forceably annex one of them), pursuit of WMD, and use of WMD against his neighbors and his own people; and

B) He was considered so dangerous by the international community that he was ordered to eliminate his stockpile of WMD (and means to make them), and prove that he had done so. But over 12 years and 17 UN resolutions he failed to comply.

History of reckless aggression and WMD use + failure to comply with UN resoultions = removal of Saddam by military force.


Now nukes are a WMD, but I never heard that as the primary reason Saddam had to go.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 12:04 PM   #597
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 9,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
My understanding is that Saddam's removal by military force was due to

A) His history of unjustified invasions of his neighbors (attempting to forceably annex one of them), pursuit of WMD, and use of WMD against his neighbors and his own people; and

B) He was considered so dangerous by the international community that he was ordered to eliminate his stockpile of WMD (and means to make them), and prove that he had done so. But over 12 years and 17 UN resolutions he failed to comply.

History of reckless aggression and WMD use + failure to comply with UN resoultions = removal of Saddam by military force.


Now nukes are a WMD, but I never heard that as the primary reason Saddam had to go.
Exactly.

A similar situation now exists with ISIS. The French President sees ISIS kicking around severed heads like soccer balls, and says, "We can't let this happen". What people don't realize is this simple fact. If a country doesn't like their leader, it is UP TO THEM to remove that leader. Revolutions of government can only come from within. That is in fact what ISIS is doing with al-Maliki, albeit barbarically.

Bush/Cheney tried to be responsible with Iraq/Afghanistan, by removing tyrants, establishing a democratic vote, training, and supplying with guns. However, you can see now, even Democracy building doesn't work.

Obama does the same thing, but is completely irresponsible, because he only supplies extremists with guns. Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine are all countries that are much worse now than they were before.

US foreign policy needs to change. Toppling stable governments in the name of democracy has been an abject failure, and has only led to widespread increasing oppression.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 01:37 PM   #598
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
My understanding is that Saddam's removal by military force was due to

A) His history of unjustified invasions of his neighbors (attempting to forceably annex one of them), pursuit of WMD, and use of WMD against his neighbors and his own people; and

B) He was considered so dangerous by the international community that he was ordered to eliminate his stockpile of WMD (and means to make them), and prove that he had done so. But over 12 years and 17 UN resolutions he failed to comply.

History of reckless aggression and WMD use + failure to comply with UN resoultions = removal of Saddam by military force.


Now nukes are a WMD, but I never heard that as the primary reason Saddam had to go.
Your conclusions are not supported by facts.

In the run up to the US invasion in 2003, US officials toured the region trying to drum up support for a war against Iraq. All of the leaders -- with the possible exception of Israel -- told the US "don't do it"

The reason: None of them felt threatened by Saddam. He had been de-fanged on the first gulf war and was under UN sanction. The US had control of the skies over Iraq. Saddam was no threat to anyone -- except his own people.

Now -- after shock/awe, the US invasion, occupation, all of which has ended in sectarian war -- Iraq has been destroyed. The region is in flames, total anarchy.

The Israelis are the only winners.

Bad as Saddam was, the people of Iraq were much better off under the dictator -- than they are now.

You are just another stupid ignorant deluded American. MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 01:37 PM   #599
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
My understanding is that Saddam's removal by military force was due to

A) His history of unjustified invasions of his neighbors (attempting to forceably annex one of them), pursuit of WMD, and use of WMD against his neighbors and his own people; and

B) He was considered so dangerous by the international community that he was ordered to eliminate his stockpile of WMD (and means to make them), and prove that he had done so. But over 12 years and 17 UN resolutions he failed to comply.

History of reckless aggression and WMD use + failure to comply with UN resoultions = removal of Saddam by military force.


Now nukes are a WMD, but I never heard that as the primary reason Saddam had to go.
http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1361


The international community discovered after Iraq’s defeat in the 1991 Persian Gulf War that Iraq had a much more advanced nuclear weapons program than either the United States or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had suspected. The IAEA was charged with undertaking inspections to ensure that Iraq complied with disarmament requirements mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 687, but the United Nations withdrew the inspectors in December 1998 after Iraq stopped cooperating with them. The agency, however, reported in 1999 that, based on the inspectors’ work until that time, there was “no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.”


Bush Administration Claim
The Bush administration claimed that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger.
Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium were considered an important step in its suspected nuclear weapons program because Baghdad’s lack of fissile material was one of the most serious constraints on its ability to produce nuclear weapons. Even if Iraq had acquired lightly processed uranium ore from Africa, however, it would still have needed to enrich it to obtain weapons-grade uranium.
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said in an August 11 statement that claims regarding uranium importation were not central to the National Intelligence Estimate’s judgments about Iraq’s nuclear program because “Iraq already had significant quantities of uranium.” Iraq had more than two tons of low-enriched uranium under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

The Controversy
Intelligence officials expressed reservations about this claim several times. Tenet told National Security Council staff and White House speechwriters not to include a line about Iraq’s attempts to import uranium from Africa in a speech Bush gave October 7, Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said July 22. Additionally, Tenet said July 11 that the CIA expressed “reservations” about the claim to British intelligence in September 2002, and INR characterized claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa as “highly dubious,” according to the October NIE.

The CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger in February 2002 to investigate reports about Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium. Wilson wrote in The New York Times July 6 that “it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had taken place” because Niger’s uranium industry is closely regulated by its government and is controlled by a consortium of foreign companies monitored by the IAEA.
Tenet said July 11 that Wilson also reported to the CIA that a former Nigerien official described a businessman’s attempt to arrange a meeting between the former official and an Iraqi delegation as “an attempt to discuss uranium sales,” but Wilson told Arms Control Today August 18 that the official mentioned uranium as an afterthought.
ElBaradei told the UN Security Council in March that U.S.-supplied documents ostensibly supporting this claim were forged.
Nigerien Prime Minister Hama Amadou denied in an interview with the London Sunday Telegraph that Niger ever discussed uranium with Iraq, according to a July 27 article.

Centrifuges
Bush Administration Claim The October NIE claimed that Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes and magnets for use in a gas centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment program.
The Controversy
Aluminum Tubes
An IAEA investigation concluded that “[t]here is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question,” ElBaradei told the Security Council March 7. He added that “field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these…tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.” According to the October NIE, both INR and Department of Energy (DOE) centrifuge experts concluded that the tubes were most likely for rockets, although three other intelligence agencies concluded they were for use in centrifuges.
Tenet said August 11 that U.S. military intelligence experts concluded that the tubes were “poor choices for rocket motor bodies,” but Greg Thielmann, former director of INR’s Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs Office, argued in a July 9 press conference that the DOE experts were the most knowledgeable about the subject.

Magnets

ElBaradei told the Security Council March 7 that there was “no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.”


Administration officials have also cited an Iraqi scientist’s June 2003 handover of blueprints and components for gas centrifuges that he had hidden on his property as evidence that Iraq had a centrifuge program. The scientist, however, had hidden those components since 1991 and IAEA Iraq Action Team Leader Jacques Baute said the component set is incomplete and the documents appear to contain errors, according to a July 15 Associated Press article.

Scientists/Personnel
Bush Administration Claim The administration claimed that Hussein was meeting with top nuclear weapons experts and that Iraq maintained the scientific know-how to produce nuclear weapons.
The Controversy Thielmann said that “there was no solid evidence that indicated Iraq’s top nuclear scientists were rejuvenating Iraq’s nuclear weapons program,” according to a June 20 Associated Press article. IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming added that Iraqi nuclear personnel were “aging…[and] weren’t working collectively.”
Infrastructure
Bush Administration Claim Bush said October 7 that Iraq was reconstructing buildings at sites where its nuclear weapons facilities had previously been located.
The Controversy ElBaradei reported March 7 that “[t]here is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.”
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 01:42 PM   #600
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
My understanding is that Saddam's removal by military force was due to

A) His history of unjustified invasions of his neighbors (attempting to forceably annex one of them), pursuit of WMD, and use of WMD against his neighbors and his own people; and

B) He was considered so dangerous by the international community that he was ordered to eliminate his stockpile of WMD (and means to make them), and prove that he had done so. But over 12 years and 17 UN resolutions he failed to comply.

History of reckless aggression and WMD use + failure to comply with UN resoultions = removal of Saddam by military force.


Now nukes are a WMD, but I never heard that as the primary reason Saddam had to go.
What you should do is watch all the speeches by bush,Cheney and company leading up to the invasion and hear for yourself why we went into Iraq. What your stating sounds more revisionists than actual fact. Especially considering in 2006 GWB stated there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Last edited by peacepipe; 06-21-2014 at 02:23 PM..
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Denver Broncos