| Kerry did it again... [message #118480] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 11:36   |
Traingye
Messages: 20
Registered: August 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson |
Saddam DID have WMD
If you think Iraq wasn't a threat, you've been watching too much Michael Moore. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that he had WMD before the war, and there are several clear, solid ties between Iraq/Saddam and known terrorist organizations. Who do you think the group is that's beheading people? You think those are just some mad Iraqis whose houses were bombed?
|
Well if he had any were the hell did they go?
| Crimson |
The reason the terrorist groups are fighting us so hard in Iraq is because they know what the stakes are, they know what a free Iraq, a government that's not friendly to terrorists MEANS to the success of their "most holy" mission. If Iraq wasn't a home to terrorists, and the previous "government" wasn't helping them out financially and with locations to train, then why are they fighting us so hard?
|
The reason there fighting so hard is because they would rather have a government were Islam was the main drive behind all the decisions and the laws.
| Crimson |
There are no ties found between Iraq/Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Problem is, the Bush Administration NEVER SAID THERE WAS. However, there are proven stated ties between known terrorists and Iraq. The reason that 9/11 is brought up is because most of us firmly believe that Saddam had the hatred for us, the money, and the influence to help MORE terrorists get their way to the US and attack us again. Just like 9/11. We mention 9/11 because it's the direct result of a failure to take the terrorist threat seriously, and the memory stands as a stark reminder why we can't stop until the terrorist organizations shrink drastically or vanish completely.
|
Yes they did. Bush used the "ties" between 9/11 and Iraq for an excuse to go to war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118487] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 12:35 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| NHJ BV |
-Iraq did not have chemical weapons anymore.
-Iraq did not have nuclear weapons
-Iraq had no connection whatsoever to the 9/11 attacks
-Iraq had no intention of attacking the US, because he damn well knew he would get his ass handed to him
-Iraq did not have the capability of attacking the US, and probably not even the capability of successfully attacking any neighbouring country
-Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the US.
|
-Tense conflict. That's also an untrue statement.
-Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons, though.
-No one said it did.
-Saddam hated the U.S. and hates it still; he's going to do everything in his power to hurt the U.S.
-Yes, it DID have the capability of attacking both the U.S. and any neighboring country.
-Wrong. It was a threat. Now it isn't since Saddam's regime has been toppled.
| SEAL |
And I fail to see how a program that tries to level the playing field for blacks is working under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid."
|
Don't you see that the playing field was level to begin with? Last I checked, it's 2004, not 1954. Blacks are not discriminated against in today's day and age like they were fifty years ago.
Yes, they do operate under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid." They assume that the black person applying for that job or applying to go to that college or what have you has not had the same education a white person applying for the same job/to the same college has had. Put simply, they think blacks are dumber than whites because of their color, so blacks should be given special treatment in the application process.
| Traingye |
Well if he had any were the hell did they go?
|
We don't know. Saddam had more than five years to hide them or get them out of his country. He had even more time to destroy the evidence and cover his tracks before coalition forces moved in on Baghdad.
| Quote: |
Yes they did. Bush used the "ties" between 9/11 and Iraq for an excuse to go to war.
|
No, he didn't.
Since you seem to think he did, though, cite your source.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118497] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 13:25 |
Traingye
Messages: 20
Registered: August 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| =[DT |
=gbull=[L]=]WMDs were probably shipped to Syria or buried in the sand upon preparation to go to war.
Islam will still be the main drive behind their government, Just because it has been liberated does not mean Iraq will be converted to Christianity. It will just be MORE based upon the Sunni form of Islam In that the leader will not be a descendent of Ali
|
If they were moved in any way we would have known it. In the time before the war a lot of intell was consentraded on Iraq.
I'm not saying Iraq would be converted. I'm just saying they would rather have a Islam government then a secular one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118504] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 13:57 |
Traingye
Messages: 20
Registered: August 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
| Traingye |
| =[DT |
=gbull=[L]=]WMDs were probably shipped to Syria or buried in the sand upon preparation to go to war.
Islam will still be the main drive behind their government, Just because it has been liberated does not mean Iraq will be converted to Christianity. It will just be MORE based upon the Sunni form of Islam In that the leader will not be a descendent of Ali
|
If they were moved in any way we would have known it. In the time before the war a lot of intell was consentraded on Iraq.
I'm not saying Iraq would be converted. I'm just saying they would rather have a Islam government then a secular one.
|
Saddam ran a secular government, proves you wrong...yet again.
|
I'm not saying he didn't. I'm also not saying that they didn't want Saddam out. But just because they want him gone does not give us the athority to invade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118511] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 15:19 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
We give ourselves authority.
|
I wonder why I frequent these forums sometimes...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118517] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 15:53 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
The Bush Administration NEVER ONCE said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I have challenged several people to find a direct quote and you will find NOTHING. Iraq DOES have everything to do with 9/11 in that at the time we started the war, most people believed that Saddam and his weapons capabilities and his contacts in terrorist organizations and his loads of money and his wonderful California-sized haven for terrorists could, in fact, result in another attack as bad or worse than the one on 9/11 if we don't get him out of there.
Remember that Iraq is the size of California, not the size of Chicago. He had all the time in the world to hide the weapons, and they may even in fact be in another country altogether. More evidence is found all the time of these weapons programs, and there are plenty of shells floating around with chemical-based warheads... however, just because a big pile hasn't been found doesn't really mean all that much yet. He's had plenty of time to hide them in at least the last 5 years.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118523] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 16:19 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Which is why we sent the weapons inspectors a notice to get out of Iraq 3 days before we started bombing it, as the inspectors were dismantling Al Samud missiles. And Saddam even said the UN could double the number of inspectors in Iraq instead of being attacked by the U.S. But we didn't care. Which is telling of how the Bush administration didn't care about WMDs as a reason for going to war.
And regardless of what the Bush administration said, 67% or something of Republicans believe Saddam had a direct part to play in the September 11th attacks. Thanks, FOX!
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118543] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 18:04 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
...Like problems with your ego on mIRC...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118557] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 19:14 |
 |
bigejoe14
Messages: 1302
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I love these debates.
In the first Presidential debate, Kerry mentioned that the United States should first pass a "world test" in order to go to war with another country. Now tonight, on the Vice Presidential debates, Edwards completely denied that statement and said that Kerry said nothing like that.
It's bad enough that Kerry is such a bad flip-flopper, but now Edwards isn't even on the same level as Kerry. it's so funny to see Liberals in action.
WHATEVER, FAGGOT
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118569] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 21:04 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SEAL |
I thought I told you I don't agree with affirmative action. Oh well.
Anyway, their theorey is that people from the 1950's etc definetly had a disadvantage in getting an equal education. This puts today's youths at a disadvantage because their parents couldnt help them with homework, or didnt have the money to send their kids to college.
|
You did, and I understood you. You also said you didn't see how a program that "levels the playingfield" can be built under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid." I was merely clarifying that a) the playing field was level to begin with (you seemed to imply that it wasn't level) and b) the thought process behind "affirmative" action was indeed built upon the "stupid black man" idea.
| Traingye |
I'm not saying he didn't. I'm also not saying that they didn't want Saddam out. But just because they want him gone does not give us the athority to invade.
|
We have the authority to defend ourselves when our national security is jeopardized. Iraq was putting our national security in jeopardy. Therefore, we had the authority.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Which is why we sent the weapons inspectors a notice to get out of Iraq 3 days before we started bombing it, as the inspectors were dismantling Al Samud missiles. And Saddam even said the UN could double the number of inspectors in Iraq instead of being attacked by the U.S. But we didn't care.
|
So, instead of attacking Saddam, we could have continued a policy that has failed for 12 years. Great idea!! :thumbsup:
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118576] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 03:30 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
So, instead of attacking Saddam, we could have continued a policy that has failed for 12 years. Great idea!!
|
How were the inspections failing if the inspectors were currently dismantling missiles and going wherever they wanted to go three days before we started bombing Iraq?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Kerry did it again... [message #118630] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 11:32 |
Traingye
Messages: 20
Registered: August 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
We have the authority to defend ourselves when our national security is jeopardized. Iraq was putting our national security in jeopardy. Therefore, we had the authority
|
The thing is that Saddam wasn't a threat. He had no WMDs and had no connection with Osama, which Bush and Cheny said they did.
As far as I'm concered this whole "flip-flop" is Republican propaganda. Sence most of you apperntly didn't pay that much attention to what Kerry has said I will explain where kerry stands on this war: He supports takeing Saddam out but not in the manner that Bush did it.
[Updated on: Wed, 06 October 2004 11:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
