It's so funny to me when we hear people in this country put down leaders of other nations yet refuse to take a look in the mirror and question the actions and rationale of your own leader.When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.
After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer," themes Bush pounds today.
LINK HERE
Fool Me Once....!
- dnpmakkah
- Hog
- Posts: 1353
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:49 am
- Location: Fairfax, VA
Fool Me Once....!
Is this story supposed to be news or editorial? All I see is someones opinion.
We didn't invade Iraq because we knew that they had WMD's. We invaded because we could not confirm that they didn't have them. It wasn't proof of there existence. It was the uncertainty of the situation, further aided by the strange behaviors of the Iraqi regime which constantly sought to hide documents, plants, scientist, and motives.
Even then, the WMD's weren't the sole reason for invading. Saddam was the most brutal dictator of this generation killing a million of his own people.
Even then it wasn't solely humanitarian reasons. Iraq (wittingly or not) was the pipeline through which terrorist traded information and weapons. It sits between Iran and Syria. Having a U.S. presence in that region during a period of uncertainty is never a bad idea. It was a strategic decision that was warranted......and voted upon by our congress....both democrat and republican.
I love it when folks talk about the horrible decision that Bush and Co. made in going into Iraq, and yet hold the dems completely without blame.
Chad
We didn't invade Iraq because we knew that they had WMD's. We invaded because we could not confirm that they didn't have them. It wasn't proof of there existence. It was the uncertainty of the situation, further aided by the strange behaviors of the Iraqi regime which constantly sought to hide documents, plants, scientist, and motives.
Even then, the WMD's weren't the sole reason for invading. Saddam was the most brutal dictator of this generation killing a million of his own people.
Even then it wasn't solely humanitarian reasons. Iraq (wittingly or not) was the pipeline through which terrorist traded information and weapons. It sits between Iran and Syria. Having a U.S. presence in that region during a period of uncertainty is never a bad idea. It was a strategic decision that was warranted......and voted upon by our congress....both democrat and republican.
I love it when folks talk about the horrible decision that Bush and Co. made in going into Iraq, and yet hold the dems completely without blame.
Chad
Saddam was the most brutal dictator of this generation killing a million of his own people.
<Sarcasm On>
Shame on you Chad...

To wit they are ...
Iraq was an idyllic paradise where noone died...unequaled since the Garden of Eden during Saddams reign. Just ask Saddam.
But please ignore those pesky Kurds or Shiites that were mass murdered
I expect better of you next time

<Sarcasm Off>
thaiphoon wrote:Saddam was the most brutal dictator of this generation killing a million of his own people.
<Sarcasm On>
Shame on you Chad...you forgot to spew the usual Leftist talking points and repeat them ad nauseum.
To wit they are ...
Iraq was an idyllic paradise where noone died...unequaled since the Garden of Eden during Saddams reign. Just ask Saddam.
But please ignore those pesky Kurds or Shiites that were mass murdered
I expect better of you next time![]()
<Sarcasm Off>
Iraq was an idyllic paradise with a death rate lower than the U.S.
We didn't seem to mind him killing those people when we were selling him the weapons with which to do so.
Bush: Fool me once... shame on... Won't get fooled again.
Bush: Fool me once... shame on... Won't get fooled again.
Last edited by Deadskins on Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)
Hail to the Redskins!
Yeah, that's equivalent.thaiphoon wrote:We didn't seem to mind him killing those people when we were selling him the weapons with which to do so.
We didn't seem to mind the Soviets killing people in WWII even though we lent it materiel support as well and even though we squared off for 50 years afterward.

Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)
Hail to the Redskins!
JSPB22 wrote:We didn't seem to mind him killing those people when we were selling him the weapons with which to do so.
Bush: Fool me once... shame on... Won't get fooled again.
Yep, we sold so many weapons to them that during both war they fought us with.........T-72's and AK's. Everyone thinks that the Iraqi Regime was propped up militarily by us....if thats so then why did the entire army have Russian weapons? I'm not saying that we didn't sell them arms, but its not as though we vreated their entire military might like the media, and liberals would have you believe.
Well he is running out of excuses. Next up I'm sure he will eventually say the war never happened and it was just our imagination.
At least the population is finally starting to realize this dude is a blatant liar. Majority of the world dislikes him and and even most people in this nation have a lack of trust in him. The history books will leave a blood trail during his reign.
At least the population is finally starting to realize this dude is a blatant liar. Majority of the world dislikes him and and even most people in this nation have a lack of trust in him. The history books will leave a blood trail during his reign.
dnpmakkah wrote:Well he is running out of excuses. Next up I'm sure he will eventually say the war never happened and it was just our imagination.
At least the population is finally starting to realize this dude is a blatant liar. Majority of the world dislikes him and and even most people in this nation have a lack of trust in him. The history books will leave a blood trail during his reign.
I'm so tired of people saying that he is a liar. Maybe he is but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Give me one example of where he lied.
chaddukes wrote:JSPB22 wrote:We didn't seem to mind him killing those people when we were selling him the weapons with which to do so.
Bush: Fool me once... shame on... Won't get fooled again.
Yep, we sold so many weapons to them that during both war they fought us with.........T-72's and AK's. Everyone thinks that the Iraqi Regime was propped up militarily by us....if thats so then why did the entire army have Russian weapons? I'm not saying that we didn't sell them arms, but its not as though we vreated their entire military might like the media, and liberals would have you believe.
Uh, Chad, we are not talking about conventional weapons here. Stay on track. We were talking about this brutal dictator killing his "own" people with chemical and biological weapons that the Reagan administration sold him in the early '80s.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)
Hail to the Redskins!
Uh, Chad, we are not talking about conventional weapons here. Stay on track. We were talking about this brutal dictator killing his "own" people with chemical and biological weapons that the Reagan administration sold him in the early '80s.
We supplied the Soviets with materiel and weapons. Stalin later used his military to force millions to labor camps and intentionally starve them. According to your logic, FDR was wrong for supporting the USSR during WWII.
thaiphoon wrote:Uh, Chad, we are not talking about conventional weapons here. Stay on track. We were talking about this brutal dictator killing his "own" people with chemical and biological weapons that the Reagan administration sold him in the early '80s.
We supplied the Soviets with materiel and weapons. Stalin later used his military to force millions to labor camps and intentionally starve them. According to your logic, FDR was wrong for supporting the USSR during WWII.
Bingo! I'm not appluading our 80's foriegn policies, but to dismiss Saddam's actions, or to even blame them on the U.S. is absurd. If you have some kind of evidence that we knew his intentions then go ahead and put out there on display. Otherwise, what is the point in this piece of spurious info?
The point would be that in WWII, we joined the Allied powers in their fight against the Axis powers. Russia was already a part of the Allied powers, when congress signed the declaration of war. In the early 80's we were not at war and were not allied with Iraq. The only purpose for arming Iraq, with WMD not conventional weapons (why do I have to keep reminding you of that?), is so that Saddam could kill Iranians, who had overthrown the US propped-up, Shah. Did Reagan bat an eyelash when Saddam gassed all of those Kurds? The right loves to equate the current police action with WWII, but it just so much spin.chaddukes wrote:thaiphoon wrote:JSPB22 wrote:Uh, Chad, we are not talking about conventional weapons here. Stay on track. We were talking about this brutal dictator killing his "own" people with chemical and biological weapons that the Reagan administration sold him in the early '80s.
We supplied the Soviets with materiel and weapons. Stalin later used his military to force millions to labor camps and intentionally starve them. According to your logic, FDR was wrong for supporting the USSR during WWII.
Bingo! I'm not appluading our 80's foriegn policies, but to dismiss Saddam's actions, or to even blame them on the U.S. is absurd. If you have some kind of evidence that we knew his intentions then go ahead and put out there on display. Otherwise, what is the point in this piece of spurious info?
Reread my post Chad. Nowhere do I absolve Saddam of guilt, nor do I blame his actions on the US.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)
Hail to the Redskins!
The point would be that in WWII, we joined the Allied powers in their fight against the Axis powers. Russia was already a part of the Allied powers, when congress signed the declaration of war. In the early 80's we were not at war
Cold War rign a bell ?? MAD ring a bell? states in Soviet "orbit" anyone?? It is telling that you fail to recognize this...
and were not allied with Iraq.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least for now

The only purpose for arming Iraq, with WMD not conventional weapons (why do I have to keep reminding you of that?), is so that Saddam could kill Iranians, who had overthrown the US propped-up, Shah.
And were in bed with the Soviets at the time. You forget we were in a little thing called the Cold War. Additionally Iran was a moderatin g influence in the middle east and pro-US country until Carter screwed up. Reason #1,220,541 that Carter is our worst president ever...
You keep lamenting the fact that we lent aid to a country who we later had to oppose. I've quite rightly pointed out that this happens all the time in the body-politic.
JSPB22 wrote:The only purpose for arming Iraq, with WMD not conventional weapons (why do I have to keep reminding you of that?), is so that Saddam could kill Iranians, who had overthrown the US propped-up, Shah. Did Reagan bat an eyelash when Saddam gassed all of those Kurds? The right loves to equate the current police action with WWII, but it just so much spin.
Reread my post Chad. Nowhere do I absolve Saddam of guilt, nor do I blame his actions on the US.
Then what are you saying?
Then what are you saying?
My guess is that he doesn't know. But it sure does sound good throwing that stuff around about the US supplying Saddam with chemical weapons dontcha think ??
Sorta like when liberals think each discussion can be trumped in their favor by shouting the words "Halliburton" (no matter what the subject). Sure does sound good though ...
chaddukes wrote:JSPB22 wrote:The only purpose for arming Iraq, with WMD not conventional weapons (why do I have to keep reminding you of that?), is so that Saddam could kill Iranians, who had overthrown the US propped-up, Shah. Did Reagan bat an eyelash when Saddam gassed all of those Kurds? The right loves to equate the current police action with WWII, but it just so much spin.
Reread my post Chad. Nowhere do I absolve Saddam of guilt, nor do I blame his actions on the US.
Then what are you saying?
That the right wants to have it both ways. They are perfectly happy to give WMD to an evil dictator when it suits their purposes, only to use them as the next bogeyman, when the invariably have to bring them down later.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)
Hail to the Redskins!
That the right wants to have it both ways. They are perfectly happy to give WMD to an evil dictator when it suits their purposes, only to use them as the next bogeyman, when the invariably have to bring them down later.
Which was more of a problem back then...
1.) The Soviet Union/Communism/MAD/more countries falling under the influence of Communism
or
2.) An authoritarian dictator in the Middle East??
Tackle larger problems first, my friend.