RLV

Iraq was already "dealt with" before the invasion.

Not at all.
Removing a murderous dictator by killing far more people that, most likely, he would have killed in the rest of his life is not an accomplishment.

Not at all. Most Iraqis lived far better before the invasion than now.
Even not counting the ones that still lived before the invasion but are dead now.


RLV

Farren

Originally posted by themistocles
I admit to skimming, but I did not notice any connection by Bush with Saddam to 9/11. I addressed my position on the "perception" of the link earlier.


want lots more links?


The UN Security Council unanimously passed 1441.


Aah, heres the text of the resolution. Care to point out where it authorises US invasion without Security Council endorsement?


Would you say Saddam Hussein is more or less of a danger to the United States now? Patently less. Ergo, war justified.


So let me get this straight. I can come over there, bomb the shit out of your house without any evidence of threat, then say since you can't possibly threaten me afterwards it was justified?

The depth of your reasoning humbles me.


And because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 doesn't mean that factions with a common enemy like the United States have no reason to get together in the future.


Aah, so along the same line of reasoning: Pick a country, any country. They don't have to be a demonstrable threat to you or anything. Just a country with a grudge is enough. And then... um ... they could get together with other guys who hate their guts and come for you so lets bomb the shit out of them!

Profound.


I can reasonably believe that will not happen now if one of the members of that potential union is nonexistant.


Hey! While you're at it why not just bomb the fuck out of Britain. I mean you never know when they're gonna turn on you, hey?

RLV

And the US Security Council was the only body able to decide what the "or else" consisted on. NOT the US.

Now Saddam is less of a danger and terrorism is more of a danger.
What would be more dangerous to the US, Saddam's Iraq, or fundamentalist terrorism?
Hint: Saddam didn't cause 11-S.

Actually, Bush has removed an enemy of Al'Qaida. By doing so, he has provided the fundamentalists with even more motives to hate the US and you have opened Iraq as a field for Al'Qaida's operations and recruiting.

I hope you are having fun, because otherwise it would be a complete waste of your time, as you haven't justified anything so far.


RLV

Farren

Hey Tag Team! Now this is fun.

Hi RLV. Been trying to convince themistocles to wear this tin foil hat I made for him

lunachick

Sure, Saddam is less of a threat.

But now you have an Iraq that will align itself with Iran, with Al Qaida, with whoever are the enemies of the US.

The whole Iraq debacle has opened Pandora's Box, and the US has increased it's likelihood of future terrorist attacks, not lessened it.

lisarea

Ooh, a spelling flame. Very impressive.

Many Al Qaeda members have also resided in the US at times. I believe that is quite well documented. I think I've heard that some have been to Europe and Canada, even!

Please provide your irrefutable evidence regarding the links between Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda; and discuss how this information relates to 9/11, why we went to war, and how that relates to why we were told we were going to war.

Please elaborate. How was Clinton at fault, and what exactly was he at fault for? For claiming that he didn't know how much of the weapons were destroyed? What was the imminent danger--then and immediately preceding Bush's war--and what should Clinton have done to prevent, uh, whatever the hell you believe was prevented?

Or is it just some kind of Clinton Cooties that have taken hold of our great nation since his bootylicious reign?

satanka

No more impressed than myself by your thoughtfulness to include the Iroquois among the quartet of I nations.


I care not to engage in such an essay as you so assigned. I have not the time nor the care to spend that much of my time this evening.
Dont kid yourself into believing that al quaeda had members who basically travelled throughout the world with the support of mid-level bureaucrats from host nations such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Sudan.

Currently, Iran has made the claim they are "holding several high-ranking" al qaeda members. Certainly, you dont believe the ayatollahs got some tipster to turn al-qaeda in at this opportune moment by coincidence?

Check the 9/11 Inquiry that was just released today and read about al qaeda and the iraqis timing their visit to Sudan at the same time.

And concerning 9/11 - i never said anything about Iraq being involved in 9/11, so dont try to confuse the issue.

About us going to war - simply stated, the world is better off without the Butcher of Baghdad and his two thugs for sons. Those three are responsible for more death and destruction than anyone else in the Mideast in recent history. Removing that regime from power offers a chance for humanity in that region to thrive without fear.

Surely you can join me in blaming Clinton for bombing an innocent aspirin factory? If people can be so eager to say Dubya has willfully lied to us about the war with Iraq, then surely Clinton is just as guilty?



I didnt bring him up to begin with.

Buenas noches. :boohoo:

Sauron

Indeed. I posted a link to the National Intelligence document, which described precisely that point.

Perhaps he'll just ignore that as well.

Sue Sponte

Sound reasoning to nuke the entire freakin' world. That would surely make other countries less of a danger to the U.S. as well.

Sauron

Translation: you tossed a claim out into the arena, but had no prior evidence for it. Now that you've been challenged on it, you're not willling to back it up.

Well, I think we're about done with this one, folks. The new toy is already broken.