Jump to content

Republicans In Denial


woodlawn
This topic is 6619 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Republicans deny:

 

Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

 

Saddam was not close to developing a nuclear bomb.

 

Saddam was not aiding Al Qaeda.

 

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people during the Reagan administration, but Reagan refused to end our alliance with him and impose sanctions.

 

Saddam killed scores of thousands of Shiite rebels when George H.W. Bush encouraged them to revolt in 1991, then ordered our troops to stand aside while Saddam massacred them.

 

Saddam ruled Iraq through murder and torture and terror during the 1980s when Republican leaders like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld supported the policy of making him our ally.

 

Republican leaders never had a problem with Saddam's atrocities until he stopped doing our bidding.

 

Iran has been a far more active sponsor of terrorism than Saddam ever was, providing funding and assistance for groups that have killed and kidnapped American citizens since the 1980s.

 

Ashcroft has stated that Iranian intelligence helped organize the bombing of U.S. troops at the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia.

 

Iran is far closer to developing a nuclear weapon than Saddam ever was.

 

President Bush only wants to attack countries that can't fight back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>So? You think we should attack Iran?

 

If you believe in Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war, attacking Iran would have made a lot more sense than attacking Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Iran actually has all the characteristics that Bush claimed as justification for attacking Iraq: they have or are busy developing weapons of mass destruction, they have a long history of aiding terrorists who have targeted Americans, they have threatened their neighbors, they have defied UN demands, they have an abysmal human rights record. And unlike Iraq, Iran has a large home-grown reform movement that wants to see the country become a (more) secular democracy.

 

Bush supporters should explain why we target a country that does NOT have the characteristics Bush claimed as a justification for war and ignore a country that DOES have those characteristics.

 

They should also explain what Bush is going to do if Iran develops a nuclear bomb. How would Bush prevent the mullahs who run the government there from giving such a bomb to one of the terrorist groups they have supported for the past twenty years? Suppose they gave a bomb to Hamas or Hezbollah. What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey landscaper, please let me address your points one at at time:

 

>> Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

 

You are incorrect. Everyone basically knows now that Iraq did not have stockpiles of WMD. It is also common knowledge that before the current war, that everyone, including Russia, thought that he did have them. Also factual, are Saddams efforts to defy international efforts to assure that he had no WMD, and as per the recent Doloufer (sp?) report, he had everything in place and every intention to restart WMD programs "once the heat was off".

 

>> Saddam was not close to developing a nuclear bomb.

 

The facts are he was trying to develop a nuke. Considering his history, to assume anything else is crazy.

 

>> Saddam was not aiding Al Qaeda.

 

Facts are he allowed Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and funneled money to Palestenian (sp?) terrorists.

 

>> Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Basically, you are correct on this point. However, our president decided that the risk of Saddam transferring WMD to terrorists was an unacceptable risk to our country -- and such risk, and the impact of that potential strike, warranted preemptive action. I agree with this decision.

 

>> Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people during the Reagan administration, but Reagan refused to end our alliance with him and impose sanctions.

 

I think that the gassing of the Kurds occurred after the Gulf war (post-Reagan), and that santions against Iraq and everywhere else have had minimal effectiveness.

 

>> Saddam killed scores of thousands of Shiite rebels when George H.W. Bush encouraged them to revolt in 1991, then ordered our troops to stand aside while Saddam massacred them.

 

You can't have it both ways. In the Gulf war, the U.S. limited it's objectives to liberate Kuwait. Hind sight being 20-20, it's easy to say that the U.S should havew invaded Bagdad -- but if they had, they would have faced #1 damnation from the world, and #2, a "quagmire" not unlike the difficulties faced today.

 

>> Saddam ruled Iraq through murder and torture and terror during the 1980s when Republican leaders like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld supported the policy of making him our ally.

 

Last I checked Bush 41, Bush 43, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were not running the country in the 1980's???

 

>> Republican leaders never had a problem with Saddam's atrocities until he stopped doing our bidding.

 

So, you are suggesting that President Carter uniquely had an anti-Sadadm agenda???

 

>>>Iran has been a far more active sponsor of terrorism than Saddam ever was, providing funding and assistance for groups that have killed and kidnapped American citizens since the 1980s.

 

 

 

>> Ashcroft has stated that Iranian intelligence helped organize the bombing of U.S. troops at the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia.

 

>> Iran is far closer to developing a nuclear weapon than Saddam ever was.

 

Yes, but Iran didn't invade Kuwait, did not use chemical weopons on their own people, did not use chemical weopons on it's neighbor (Iran), and was not shooting at our planes on a weekly basis.

 

>> President Bush only wants to attack countries that can't fight back.

 

That is a silly statement. For example, why then doesn't Bush attack Sudan or Greenland???

And while you did not bring up the "ally" crap, it is more evident every day that Germany, France, and Russia were "on the take" with respect to Iraq - and that is the true reason why they opposed U.S. efforts to "do the right thing".

 

Ready -- just the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Hey landscaper, please let me address your points one at at

>time:

>

>>> Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

>

>You are incorrect. Everyone basically knows now that Iraq did

>not have stockpiles of WMD. It is also common knowledge that

>before the current war, that everyone, including Russia,

>thought that he did have them. Also factual, are Saddams

>efforts to defy international efforts to assure that he had no

>WMD, and as per the recent Doloufer (sp?) report, he had

>everything in place and every intention to restart WMD

>programs "once the heat was off".

>

 

You are incorrect. Many people doubted that Saddam had viable stockpile of CB weapons for the simple reason, now confirmed by the ISG report, that the precursor chemicals were unstable and basically any previously manufactured would be inert. The one shell that has been used in Iraq during the current conflict was in an improvised device and was left over from the Iran/Iraq war. The actual explosion produced so little nerve gas (trace amounts) that nobody was affected by it even though the site had been examined by US soldiers shortly after the blast.

 

The UN inspectors were not forced out by Saddam but were ordered out by Bush under threat that they would become involved in the fighting.

 

No-one was suggesting that the inspection sanctions should be lifted. Many were suggesting re-visiting the "Oil for Food" program precisely because Saddam was exploiting it to cream off money to build his palaces and bolster his regime. Any changes would require a Security Council vote which the US could have vetoed. In reality the "heat" would not have been taken off.

 

 

 

>>> Saddam was not close to developing a nuclear bomb.

>

>The facts are he was trying to develop a nuke. Considering

>his history, to assume anything else is crazy.

>

 

The facts are that he had given up plans to develop a nuclear bomb in the early 90s. The main purpose for his devloping one was to counter the Iranian developments and like his CB weapons were for regional strategic purposes.

 

 

>>> Saddam was not aiding Al Qaeda.

>

>Facts are he allowed Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and

>funneled money to Palestenian (sp?) terrorists.

>

 

 

The one "camp" that Al Zarqawi - whose organisation could loosely be said to be part of the network associalted with Al Qaeda - had in Iraq was in an isolated valley in the north of the country. That was in an area controlled by the Kurds against who there was ongoing rivalry. The money paid to Palestinian was to recomense the families of suicide bombers who homes are demolished by the Israelis against International Law.

 

>>> Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

>

>Basically, you are correct on this point. However, our

>president decided that the risk of Saddam transferring WMD to

>terrorists was an unacceptable risk to our country -- and such

>risk, and the impact of that potential strike, warranted

>preemptive action. I agree with this decision.

>

 

There is absolutely no evidence other than the fevered imaginings of the Neocons that Saddam had any such intention, indeed there are very good reasons why he shold not have anything to do with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Saddam was basically a secular ruler who used the pretence of mosque attendance to bolster his popularity as a "devout muslim". Bin Laden belongs to a strict Wahabbi version of Sunni Islam which sees this sort of bewhaviour as anti-Islamic.

 

What has happened is that large amounts of equipment and materiel that could be used to produce "dirty" and fission bombs have disappeared from Iraq since the US invasion for the simple reason that they were not guarded. Whole buildings have simply vanished according to satellite surveillance which is all the UN Inspectors have now they have been denied access by the US. That, by the way is in contravention of the UN requirements so maybe the US should invade Iraq to ensure that the Inspectors are allowed in by errr... the USA.

 

 

>>> Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people during

>the Reagan administration, but Reagan refused to end our

>alliance with him and impose sanctions.

>

>I think that the gassing of the Kurds occurred after the Gulf

>war (post-Reagan), and that santions against Iraq and

>everywhere else have had minimal effectiveness.

>

 

The gassing of the Kurds occured before the Gulf War, in the late 1980s.

 

If sanctions have minimal effect, why has Bush tightened those against Cuba?

 

>>> Saddam killed scores of thousands of Shiite rebels when

>George H.W. Bush encouraged them to revolt in 1991, then

>ordered our troops to stand aside while Saddam massacred

>them.

>

>You can't have it both ways. In the Gulf war, the U.S.

>limited it's objectives to liberate Kuwait. Hind sight being

>20-20, it's easy to say that the U.S should havew invaded

>Bagdad -- but if they had, they would have faced #1 damnation

>from the world, and #2, a "quagmire" not unlike the

>difficulties faced today.

>

 

The fact remains that the Shiite revolt was encouraged by GH Bush with the implication that it would be supported. It occured long after the war was over.

 

>>> Saddam ruled Iraq through murder and torture and terror

>during the 1980s when Republican leaders like Bush and Cheney

>and Rumsfeld supported the policy of making him our ally.

>

>Last I checked Bush 41, Bush 43, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were not

>running the country in the 1980's???

>

 

MMM let's see, Bush 41 was defeated by Clinton in 1992. Prior to Bush 41 the President was Roniie Ray-gun whose deputy was????

 

>>> Republican leaders never had a problem with Saddam's

>atrocities until he stopped doing our bidding.

>

>So, you are suggesting that President Carter uniquely had an

>anti-Sadadm agenda???

>

>>>>Iran has been a far more active sponsor of terrorism than

>Saddam ever was, providing funding and assistance for groups

>that have killed and kidnapped American citizens since the

>1980s.

>

>

>

>>> Ashcroft has stated that Iranian intelligence helped

>organize the bombing of U.S. troops at the Khobar Towers

>complex in Saudi Arabia.

>

>>> Iran is far closer to developing a nuclear weapon than

>Saddam ever was.

>

>Yes, but Iran didn't invade Kuwait, did not use chemical

>weopons on their own people, did not use chemical weopons on

>it's neighbor (Iran), and was not shooting at our planes on a

>weekly basis.

>

 

Saddam was actually encouraged to invade Kuwait by abmiguous comments from the then US Ambassador. However inaccurate, Saddam had the impression the US would not object to his taking over what had been part of the province of Iraq.

 

Both sides in the Iran/Iraq War of the late 80s used poison gas against each other AND both recieved intelligence reports from the USA. Remind me, was it Rumsfeld or CHeney who was photographed shaking hands with Saddam shortly after the Anfar campaign against the Kurds and at a time when the gassing was known about in the west?

 

 

 

>>> President Bush only wants to attack countries that can't

>fight back.

>

>That is a silly statement. For example, why then doesn't Bush

>attack Sudan or Greenland???

 

No immediately exploitable oil reserves. The other reason is that whatever you think of Saddam, his tactics of withdrawal to a guerilla campaign rather that main battle fighting has been a success. So much so that the USA is incapable of any major campaign for the foreseeable future. Quite simply, so much of the USA's armed forces are tied up in Iraq that there are not enough to fight elsewhere. There are not even enough to fight in Iraq as Bush has had to go cap in hand to Blair to beg for more troops to enable the marines to go into Fallujah.

 

 

>And while you did not bring up the "ally" crap, it is more

>evident every day that Germany, France, and Russia were "on

>the take" with respect to Iraq - and that is the true reason

>why they opposed U.S. efforts to "do the right thing".

 

The list of those US citizens who Saddam may or may not have targetted was not released due to "privacy laws". What we do know is that Halliburton was involved in building the Iraqi oil infrastructure and would have been a major contractor to upgrade it. Billions went missing during the Bremner viceregency from money that was supposed to be used to benefit the Iraqis. Kellog Brown and Roost (A Halliburton subsidiary) has received no-tender contracts which are now the subject of criminal investigation.

 

By the way, those nasty little attacks on these countries are not going to help encourage the vast amounts of debt forgiveness that the US is trying to get those very countries to make.

 

>

>Ready -- just the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ready with Lies

 

>Hey landscaper, please let me address your points one at at

>time:

 

Since you have decided to indulge in namecalling like the above, I feel free to tell you to take your "address" and shove it up your flabby, pockmarked ass. In the words of Dick Cheney, I feel so much better now!

 

 

>

>>> Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

>

>You are incorrect. Everyone basically knows now that Iraq did

>not have stockpiles of WMD.

>It is also common knowledge that

>before the current war, that everyone, including Russia,

>thought that he did have them.

 

You lie. As londonbear has accurately pointed out, there were plenty of voices -- including many in our own State Department -- who dissented from Bush's line that Saddam had WMD.

 

> Also factual, are Saddams

>efforts to defy international efforts to assure that he had no

>WMD, and as per the recent Doloufer (sp?) report, he had

>everything in place and every intention to restart WMD

>programs "once the heat was off".

 

You are lying again. The Duelfer report specifically states that he did NOT have the material and equipment in place to restart those programs. You are a liar.

 

>>> Saddam was not close to developing a nuclear bomb.

>

>The facts are he was trying to develop a nuke. Considering

>his history, to assume anything else is crazy.

 

You are lying again. The Duelfer report specifically stated the nuclear program was no longer active. Liar.

 

 

>>> Saddam was not aiding Al Qaeda.

>

>Facts are he allowed Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and

>funneled money to Palestenian (sp?) terrorists.

 

More lies. The only Al Qaeda affiliate active in Iraq before the invasion was Ansar Al Islam, which operated in the Kurdish area where Saddam did NOT have control.

 

>>> Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

>

>Basically, you are correct on this point.

 

What do you mean "basically"? Is there some other sense in which Saddam WAS involved in 9/11 other than "basically"? Or are you just trying to avoid admitting that your hero Bush was dead wrong?

 

> However, our

>president decided that the risk of Saddam transferring WMD to

>terrorists was an unacceptable risk to our country -- and such

>risk, and the impact of that potential strike, warranted

>preemptive action. I agree with this decision.

 

Since Saddam never HAD any WMD to transfer to anyone, and since there is no evidence to show he ever had any plan to transfer them to anyone, it turns out that Bush started a war for nothing. The day will come when he has to defend himself from a charge of war crimes just like Pinochet. I'll be there to see it. I hope you are too.

 

>>> Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people during

>the Reagan administration, but Reagan refused to end our

>alliance with him and impose sanctions.

>

>I think that the gassing of the Kurds occurred after the Gulf

>war (post-Reagan),

 

You are lying again. It occurred in the late 80s.

 

 

and that santions against Iraq and

>everywhere else have had minimal effectiveness.

 

More lies. According to the Duelfer report, the sanctions did exactly what they were designed to do -- they stopped Saddam from getting WMD's.

 

>>> Saddam killed scores of thousands of Shiite rebels when

>George H.W. Bush encouraged them to revolt in 1991, then

>ordered our troops to stand aside while Saddam massacred

>them.

>

>You can't have it both ways. In the Gulf war, the U.S.

>limited it's objectives to liberate Kuwait. Hind sight being

>20-20, it's easy to say that the U.S should havew invaded

>Bagdad -- but if they had, they would have faced #1 damnation

>from the world, and #2, a "quagmire" not unlike the

>difficulties faced today.

 

Are you lying, or just dumb enough to believe your own argument? Bush decided not to invade Iraq. But who made him encourage the Shiites to rebel and then order our troops to stand aside and do nothing? Well?

 

 

>>> Saddam ruled Iraq through murder and torture and terror

>during the 1980s when Republican leaders like Bush and Cheney

>and Rumsfeld supported the policy of making him our ally.

>

>Last I checked Bush 41, Bush 43, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were not

>running the country in the 1980's???

 

I am so tired of your lies. In 1983 Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to meet with Saddam as Reagan's personal representative to assure him of the president's friendship and support. If you do a google search you should have no trouble finding a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands at that meeting -- the picture has been all over the papers this year. Bush the elder was vice president at that time. When he became president in 1989, he continued the alliance with Saddam. Cheney was his Defense Secretary and supported that policy. The fact that Saddam was a vicious tyrant obviously did not bother any of these men in those days. Why is that?

 

>>> Republican leaders never had a problem with Saddam's

>atrocities until he stopped doing our bidding.

>

>So, you are suggesting that President Carter uniquely had an

>anti-Sadadm agenda???

 

It was Ronald Reagan who began the alliance with Saddam. Check the facts yourself and you will see.

 

 

>>>>Iran has been a far more active sponsor of terrorism than

>Saddam ever was, providing funding and assistance for groups

>that have killed and kidnapped American citizens since the

>1980s.

>

>>> Ashcroft has stated that Iranian intelligence helped

>organize the bombing of U.S. troops at the Khobar Towers

>complex in Saudi Arabia.

>

>>> Iran is far closer to developing a nuclear weapon than

>Saddam ever was.

 

 

>Yes, but Iran didn't invade Kuwait, did not use chemical

>weopons on their own people, did not use chemical weopons on

>it's neighbor (Iran), and was not shooting at our planes on a

>weekly basis.

 

Who the fuck cares? Iran has spent a fortune supporting terrorism and trying to destabilize other regimes in the region -- they are doing that right now in Iraq -- since the 1980s. They have bankrolled groups that kidnapped and killed Americans. They helped kill our soldiers at the Khobar Towers. Why has big, strong Bush never taken any action against them for these crimes? Well?

 

>>> President Bush only wants to attack countries that can't

>fight back.

>

>That is a silly statement. For example, why then doesn't Bush

>attack Sudan or Greenland???

 

Of the three countries that make up his "Axis of Evil," which one has he attacked? Only the one that DOESN'T have WMD and so could NOT fight back. There is no way for you to justify that if you stick to facts. That is why you tell so many lies.

 

 

>And while you did not bring up the "ally" crap, it is more

>evident every day that Germany, France, and Russia were "on

>the take" with respect to Iraq - and that is the true reason

>why they opposed U.S. efforts to "do the right thing".

>

>Ready -- just the facts.

 

Just the lies, should be your motto. After all the help the US gave Saddam for 10 years during the 80s, who the fuck is America to condemn anyone for doing business with Saddam? Well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican's bullshit indefensible!

 

Of course we shouldn't attack Iran or North Korea.

 

They don't have nearly as much oil as Iraq!!. :*

 

National security-wise, yes, it would have made far more sense, or, maybe, just maybe, FINISHING THE FUCKING JOB IN Afghanistan! But I'm not swimming in money from energy companies, so what do I know??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ready with Lies

 

Londonbear and Woodlawn, why are you wasting your time refuting this mythology? To prevent the spread of brainwashing? I suppose that is a worthy objective, but in general I would rather be having sex.

 

In fact, I am sort of hoping for a Bush reelection. Letting him leave in the middle of this disaster would be like allowing Goebbels to retire to Switzerland in 1941.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ready with Lies

 

>Londonbear and Woodlawn, why are you wasting your time

>refuting this mythology? To prevent the spread of

>brainwashing? I suppose that is a worthy objective, but in

>general I would rather be having sex.

 

If there is something you would rather do, by all means go ahead and fucking do it. Beats me why people keep coming to this board while insisting they have better things to do than come here.

 

I am wasting my time refuting this momser because I enjoy this board and I do not like seeing it used as a platform for spreading misinformation.

 

I can have and have had civil discussions with others about Bush's policies. There have been times when I have defended Bush from accusations that I thought were baseless and foolish. But I cannot have a civil discussion with someone who defends Bush with lies such as "Everyone thought Iraq had WMD's," or by making hypocritical remarks about the atrocities of Saddam which our leaders tolerated for years so long as he did their bidding in the region.

 

 

>In fact, I am sort of hoping for a Bush reelection. Letting

>him leave in the middle of this disaster would be like

>allowing Goebbels to retire to Switzerland in 1941.

 

Think how many lives would have been saved if the entire Nazi leadership could have been persuaded to retire in 1941 rather than being forcibly retired in 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...