Iraq has made clear the limits of US power. - Page 32

eleanoraquitaine · #**311** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

You are not a libertarian. It's that simple. A libertarian knows that Saddam didn't pose a threat. From your arguments, I'd say your a neoconservative. But I don't really care about labels and idendities and so forth. It's whatever.

Funniest thing I have read in a while....

Tuatara · #**312** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

You have to actually read the post, look at everything, and have the ability to use all of the information together, not separate.

That was the post you were talking about??? I was right, you have nothing.

BigRed · #**313** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

What are you talking about. I have posted numerous references. Have you not even looked at them?

Yea and I refutiated all of them as nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

I never said he trained the terrorists that flew on 911. I showed that he had trained terrorists that had in all probability attacked us in the past. And he continued to support them. Read the links again.

I never said you did. There was a comment that he trained terrorists of Al Queda and so forth. There is no definitive proof that Saddam ever trained any terrorist that went on to attack the United States of America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Wiki is not the best source. But anyway. I never claimed that he shot down any of our birds, I and several others provided references showing that he broke the cease fire by targeting and firing on our birds. That is a violent act against us. If a guy breaks in your home, and shoots a gun at you, but misses it is still attempted murder. Same thing with the above. He attempted.

So he "attempted" to shoot down our birds and was unequivocally unsuccessful. So we invade his country and kill innocent civilians?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp

Quote:

The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the shootings as a "self-defense" excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn't even taking the matter to the UN Security Council.

Yawn...

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

And???? We turned him over, and he was tried for his crimes. We did not kill him, you said we did.

Haha. Now look he isn't reading what I've posted. You can search this thread day and night and not one time did I even mention Saddam was killed by the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

You have posted nothing to refute my sources claims (as a whole) that show he was a threat, he did fun and sponsor terror, and he did target and fire on our birds. You have done nothing to show that he did not. You have however, twisted words of the other posters in an attempt to justify your views on what is going on.

I don't know what else I have to do then. I've supplied countless links, you haven't refutiated. I've supplied a concrete argument you have refutiated. Instead, you continue (just like that other poster) that I haven't done enough to refutiate your claims. Odd. Okay, so let me look for some more sources and more articles:

(From the CIA's mouth itself)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1527749.shtml

(Denouncing Faulty Intelligence Claims)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_...igence_on_Iraq

(Cheney himself saying in 1994 invading Iraq would be ridiculous)

YouTube - Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would...

(Interesting article from the BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4505874.stm

(Another interesting article on Iraq)
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=441

(Two US Generals opposing the Iraq War)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...181629,00.html

(Bush pushing away from his military advisors)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010901872.html

Do I have to continue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

That is because you fail to connect the frigging dots. If you would have actually read the whole report you would have seen that it was circumstantial. But that backed with the other stuff I posted, removes reasonable doubt.

Backed by what? You haven't provided anything but a flimsy web site with no source and then I found another source that backs up that web site on my own and that web site is not a credible source. There is not a single credible intelligence source that will cite Saddam or any other one affiliated with Saddam with the 1993 WTC Bombings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Wow, just wow. So wiki is good enough, but a peer reviewed site is not good enough? Wow just wow. In addition. A bias article from a bias site.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/

"Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market"

I said it was an interesting article. I didn't say it was any kind of authority on anything. The web sites you have continued to provide me are nothing but uncredible and slanted information that actually try to back up an argument. I was just presenting an interesting article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

All of my sources have come from unbiased areas. All you have to do is have the ability to think outside the box a bit. But you clearly lack the ability to connect evidence.

Yea, Fox News that helped beat the drum for War and the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin that want us in the Middle East are definitive sources for backing up any information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

I never said they had nukes. It was stated that we believed he was furthering his CB weapons research, and may have CB weapons, it was also believed that he may have been attempting to start his nuclear program again.

And of course, none of that was proven.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...aq.wmd.report/

They did not have the capacity even if they did have them, which they didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

I am unimpressed.

You're telling me. Your argument amounts to this, "I'm right, you're wrong, do your own research."

C-D-P · #**314** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

That was the post you were talking about??? I was right, you have nothing.

This is nothing?

Quote:

To: JMS

From: C-D-P

Subj: REASONS PUSHING ON IRAQ WAS VALID

Ref: (1)http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990802-in.htm
(2)http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
(3)http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20041011a.html
(4)http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
(5) FMFRP 3-203 {open source}
(6) FMFRP 4-509 {UNCLASS - FOUO}
(7) UN resolution 1284
(8 ) UN resolution 686
(9) UN resolution 687

1. As per reference (1) and reference (3) there were established long term ties between Iraq and various terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. These ties were linked to attacks carried out in the U.S. in reference (1). Because of late insertion of SOF forces, we were only able to witness (but not identify) the movement of large numbers of both personnel and unidentified ordinance into Syria, as per reference (6).

2. As reference (4) shows, Iraq did not stay within the confines of UN resolution, because of the findings listed in reference (3). It is because of this, and the unidentified troop and munitions movements listed in reference (6) that gives credence to the ideal that Iraq continued to violate the terms of Reference (7). Per reference (5) Iraq showed the willingness to use CB weapons against unarmed civilians.

3. In keeping with the above paragraphs, it should also be noted that there were continued violations of both reference (8 ) and reference (9). As was stated in both reference (8 ) and reference (9), breaking either of the above references can authorize military intervention to cease the infractions.

This Marine's findings as a plank holder (that means I helped write it) of reference (6) and from the above references, the push on Iraq was justified.

You are a closed minded individual.

BigRed · #**315** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

This is nothing?

You are a closed minded individual.

I already knocked down the Federation of American Scientists.

The rest of those links don't even work.

rodrigu3 · #**316** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:37 AM

They're all pre-Iraq invasion anyway.

Tuatara · #**317** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

This is nothing?
You are a closed minded individual.

I've already countered all those links. Too bad. game over for you. Time to move on.

C-D-P · #**318** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodrigu3

They're all pre-Iraq invasion anyway.

And? Your point?

He was caught with stuff he said he destroyed. So that gives credence to the reports that he moved troops and munitions into Syria while we were building up along the south. AND it is not like he was going to be able to do any new stuff after we pushed in.

As I have said many times before. Intel is never hard and fast. But when you look at all the data together, it paints a good picture.

The problem most civilians run into, they fail to understand how intel works, they think that the military should know all and see all, they think that the government should be almost godlike in their abilities to see what is going on. That CAN NOT HAPPEN because they are human just like everyone else.

BigRed · #**319** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:44 AM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

Your only link here doesn't say anything about Iraq and nuclear/biological/chemical weapons post-1991. Did you read your own article?

rodrigu3 · #**320** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

And? Your point?

My point is that we went into Iraq with weak intelligence, no exit strategy, and with a weak economy. The factually-correct intelligence that came out after we invaded Iraq negates everything you say. But you'll probably just say that the post-invasion intelligence doesn't matter and try to illogically obsess your way around it. You cannot start a war on intelligence that his "not hard and fast" (your words).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2nd Amendment Made Clear	k7leetha	Gun Control	58	06-12-2008 10:57 AM
Rice Says U.S. Has Made Mistakes in Iraq	chainyanker	Current Events	67	12-08-2006 02:39 PM
Clinton Made al Qaeda/Iraq Connection	JP5	Terrorism	2	04-30-2006 06:14 AM
Iraq Sunni's: We made a big mistake	KLang	Current Events	3	02-22-2005 08:00 AM
Iraq Election: A Clear Victory	JP5	Elections & Campaigns	149	02-04-2005 03:22 PM