[video=youtube_share;_VrFV5r8cs0]http://youtu.be/_VrFV5r8cs0?list=PLJdYRfQuif3J sw8cPKvZGhRhu_YWWJBvo[/video] Oh, he is a judge or a prosecutor with all of the facts on hand including the intel that the president would have had at the time? No. See, a man's got to know his limitations. Your Nuremberg attendee doesn't have all the facts and he obviously doesn't know his limitations and you are like the blind following the blind.
You seem desperate to find evidence to support the invasion of Iraq. The principle pretexts that were contrived at the time were false, and the consequences of the aggression highly detrimental to the US, but you'll clearly grasp at whatever flimsy excuses you can find. Most folks have accepted the truth and are able to move on. Maybe you will too, eventually.
My advice to you? [video=youtube_share;tRxhkbk4lV M]http://youtu.be/tRxhkbk4lVM?list=PLJdYRfQuif3J sw8cPKvZGhRhu_YWWJBvo[/video]
Not until I get a satisfactory answer to a question which hasn't even occurred to you! What were the Israelis going to do in response to their mortal enemy being coy about his WMD's? And why did the Iranians NOT re-attack as Saddam feared they might? Answer those to any reasonable degree of satisfaction and then we will move to the next step.
What the Israelis DID was get the US into this idiotic turd hunt in Iraq through subversion by installing a passel of Israeli moles into high positions in the GW Bush administration. Pearle, Libby, Wolfowitz, Zakheim and several other high level officials had direct ties to Israel. They were highly culpable in creating the policies that led to the ill advised Iraq invasion. Google PNAC, and Securing the Realm for Israel. Many Bush officials were working for Israel before they oozed their way into the US DOD. Israelis getting worked up regarding another nation being "coy" about their weaponry is a real laugher. Has Israel admitted officially that they have one of the worlds largest stockpiles of nukes squirreled away yet? And god only knows what else they are hiding from the world. What a friggin' joke! Also the Israeli military has been quite effective against a rag tag bunch of Palestinians, mostly teenagers throwing rocks from the back of beat up Toyota pickups. To suggest these cowardly bullies would start a war with Iraq and an actual real army is hilarious. Get a grip mate!
There are many facets to this whole matter. But boiled down it remains a contest of good vs evil. Islam is not moderate though there are millions and millions of moderate Muslims. Those moderate Muslims are irrelevant to the direct threat posed by their fellow believers who agreed that violence in the name of Allah is sometimes justified. No, the moderate Muslims use other means of performing the mandated Jihad. Some of them can be seen on these pages of PF. Any way, there is no moral equivalence. Muslims in too great a concentration produce a toxic by product which is unacceptable in a free society. The only thing I have come up with to prevent our being afflicted by Islamist waste matter is to limit all of them to below Stage Two concentrations. There is no bigotry involved here. Self preservation is paramount. Too many Muslims in too high concentrations, either nationally or in enclaves, produces predictable problems, but also, PREVENTABLE problems. The thing that will help us see the picture clearly is at this link. Dr. Peter Hammond's work as highlighted in the article, "The Five Stages of Islam." http://www.think-israel.org/butrick.5stagesislam.html So, bottom line... Jews in America = Good. Muslims in America = A Trojan Horse.
I love the sound of anti-semite whning and lying in the morning. It smells like Islamic bigotry! Tip of the cap to LTC Kilgore. - - - Updated - - - Spoken like a good jihadist.
Can you point out any factual errors in my post? This looks like more non responsive Krap from a Fox News lemming.
He did the same thing with my post #94....posting from the Tandy 1000 in his mom's basement no less! I'm guessing dialup.
the arguments sound equally absurd, and yet, less mature and refined. I think you may have something!
No. There are still the humanitarian concerns, but such concerns should not be judged by intent. The invasion of Iraq has left the human rights situation worse than it was before we invaded, and the region is destabilized. It's never popular to say "let dictators rule", but this is one case where we should have.
It's been alleged that the real purpose of the Iraq War was preserving the US dollar as the world's key currency and Saddam was about to switch to the euro just before he was deposed by force. In 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros.and several other oil producing countries such as Iran, Libya, Venezuela, and Russia have also agreed to sell oil in euros, which threatened America's dominant economic status. According to the Clinton doctrine, the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources" and the Bush administration put it into action, partly emboldened by huge public support that the administration enjoyed in the post-9/11 political climate.
Boy, you just love showing the world exactly how smaht you are, huh Fredo? [video=youtube;2X9E9n6GHC8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X9E9n6GHC8[/video]
There were at least seven really good reasons for invading. One reason was (or might well have been!) the switch from petro DOLLARS to petro-some other currency. But that wasn't the urgent deciding factor behind the invasion if it was even an actual motivation at all.
Maybe you can answer this question for me. What were the Israelis going to do about the WMD bluff from Saddam which was serious enough to the Iranians that it kept them on their side of the border rather than crossing it to attack Saddam's forces again after the end of their 1,000,000 men killed, ten year long war? Do you think the Israelis would have done nothing and just let their fate be decided by luck and hope and the tender mercies of Saddam Hussein the Butcher of Baghdad? The Dictator who'd tried to SCUD missile attack Israel into joining the Gulf War coalition. We stopped the Israelis in 1991 from attacking Iraq. What were the Israelis going to do had we not invaded?
Yeah, I dialed up Gen. Casey and asked him about you and at first he didn't recognize your nic, "expatriate." But the minute I called you Fredo, he started laughing. Yeah, I guess he did know you once. He asked about you. "Is he still trying to convince everyone that he's SMAHT, not like everybody says?" We had a good laugh at your expense. LOLOL
If you were incapable of countering the arguments in #94, perhaps it would have been more prudent to simply say so.
You have asked a variant of this question a few times before. Israel is capable of acting in its own defense in that area. We watched them take out the Osirak nuclear site - and that was a totally unilateral action with NO US involvement. They decided that Osirak was a legitimate target worthy of their attention without the help of US intelligence. We were angry at their actions, voted in the UNSC to condemn it, and withheld previously authorized defense shipments because of it. If Israeli intelligence - which clearly was and is better in that area of the world than ours is - had felt that Saddam's WMD capabilities posed a significant and imminent threat to the security of the state of Israel, I have no doubt that they would have acted on it in a precise, effective manner - much like their Osirak strike - that would have cost a lot less than two trillion dollars and forty thousand dead and wounded. You pose the question as if such an outcome, rather than our hamfisted invasion, conquest, occupation, nation building, constitution writing, police force maintaining (that DID cost two trillion and DID cost 40K dead and wounded) efforts would have been the preferred option. Before we invaded: 1. Al Qaeda was as hunted and unwelcome in Iraq as we were trying to make them in Afghanistan... except that Saddam was more successful in routing them out of HIS country than we were in Afghanistan. 2. Sunnis and Shi'ites were not slaughtering one another wholesale across Iraq. 3. Saddam WAS keeping Iran - and their visions of regional hegemony - in check, and that was a good thing for us.
Some with a strong affinity for the nation of Israel may have wanted the US to shed money and blood on behalf of the only advanced, social welfare state in the region, and the Israeli lobby may have erroneously calculated that eliminating the counterbalance to Iran was somehow in Israel's interest, but that was only a secondary factor for the Bushie neocons who contrived the fiasco. They had tipped their hand in their 2000 PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" before they had acceded to the power and had the opportunity to conflate their objective with the disparate matter of al Quaeda and 9/11/01. (The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was stressed as the objective by both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz one day after the al Qaeda terrorist attacks - before anyone knew who was responsible.) Recall Rumsfeld's revelatory note to his aide on the very afternoon of 9/11/01: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." meaning Saddam Hussein "at same time. Not only UBL" (Osama bin Laden.) Need to move swiftly Near term target needs go massive sweep it all up. Things related and not." Their oportunistically targeting Iraq as well as the perpetrators of the attacks was entirely consistent with their declared, long-standing primary ambition: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" The neocons' stated objective was to establish permanent U.S. military bases in the vital Persian Gulf region, and they regarded the erstwhile US ally as expendable in achieving that end. Yes, their scheme blew up in their faces when Bush's insistence on permanent US bases was summarily rejected by new boss Maliki, but the documents that exposed their caper are permanent, and available for all to see.
The problem was Bill Clinton never finished the job. He left our invasion force sitting in Saudi Arabia for his entire 8 years in office. Infidels in the holy land was Osama bin Ladens number one (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), concerning America. Bill Clinton pretending Iraq didnt exist is what directly led to 9/11
now the meme is that Clinton IGNORED Iraq? For years, it was that Clinton and the ILA were proof that the democrats wanted to invade Iraq long before Bush did. We heard about the continuous US air presence in the no-fly zones maintained by Clinton, and the attacks on Iraqi radar sites as proof that democrats were just as aggressive as Bush. Why the shift? Is that what Rush and Sean are peddling these days?
Knowing what we know now in a literal sense, no it was not worth it. We, along with the international community, had a global intelligence failure. We did however take down one of the most brutal regimes in the world, and for that, I have no regrets. I will not defend the war to the death because the intelligence was incorrect or outdated (not sure which).
