Oh gay patriot....stay classy.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:29 PM GMT
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/08/20/victory-in-iraq-by-us-forces/

    I know I talk about these people a lot...but I am truly fascinated by them. Their ability to disregard aspects of reality in defense of their narrow world views and ideologies is just incredible.

    "August 18 SHOULD be VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY if for no other reason than to mark then end of the success that our original mission, further supplemented by the brave decision by President Bush to launch the surge in 2007, is complete. Yes, US forces will remain as advisors for another year. But “The War” in Iraq is over."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."


    In short, we should celebrate the deaths of soldiers and civilians who died in an illegal war.

    Be proud of the fact that we "completed the mission" which...if you read the post is not clearly laid out nor in line with what was stated at the start of the war.

    Then be happy we did not find WMD's...you know..because that's not what we went to look for in the first place....>sigh<
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:45 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWere you one of the people who said we went into Iraq for the oil?

    Because if you did.... it should now be obvious to you that we didn't.



    >sigh< you cant do anything without attempting to demonize the dissenting voices. Thats what people like you do, they attempt to demonize and in extreme situations dehumanize those they disagree with as to make the other person lose credibility despite how right they may or may not be. You can't have an informed debate, you can only attempt to paint others as "bad" so others who may agree with you don't need to think, they can just blindly attack.

    You need a new bag of tricks, and to answer your question no, I was not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 6:53 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidno, I was not.


    Good - there's hope for you yet! icon_biggrin.gif


    Hope for what?

    I don't see myself growing up to be a bitter queen devoid of human compassion and surrounded only by material comforts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 7:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    southbeach1500 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidno, I was not.


    Good - there's hope for you yet! icon_biggrin.gif


    Hope for what?

    I don't see myself growing up to be a bitter queen devoid of human compassion and surrounded only by material comforts.


    Good!

    Though you are already, by your own admission, surrounded by material comforts - but you can work on that... icon_wink.gif


    Great now if you could drop the e-crush you've got for me that would be great.

    You are clouding the topic of this post.
  • yankeesblazer...

    Posts: 243

    Aug 20, 2010 7:16 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidhttp://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/08/20/victory-in-iraq-by-us-forces/

    I know I talk about these people a lot...but I am truly fascinated by them. Their ability to disregard aspects of reality in defense of their narrow world views and ideologies is just incredible.

    "August 18 SHOULD be VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY if for no other reason than to mark then end of the success that our original mission, further supplemented by the brave decision by President Bush to launch the surge in 2007, is complete. Yes, US forces will remain as advisors for another year. But “The War” in Iraq is over."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."


    In short, we should celebrate the deaths of soldiers and civilians who died in an illegal war.

    Be proud of the fact that we "completed the mission" which...if you read the post is not clearly laid out nor in line with what was stated at the start of the war.

    Then be happy we did not find WMD's...you know..because that's not what we went to look for in the first place....>sigh<


    The war wasn't illegal...at the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq, Britain and the United States signed a cease fire prohibiting Saddam Hussein from running any offensive military action (very basic interpretation). He violated that cease fire 16 times between the end of the first Gulf War and the US led invasion in 2003. Hence, they had full authority to restart the conflict 16 tiems.

    Secondly, the US Congress authorized the action into Iraq in early 2003 with bipartisan support. The intelligence turned out to be bad, but that doesn't make the war illegal.

    Yeah, when conflict ends you typical celebrate the "victory" if you so earned one. These soldiers knew what their purpose over there was, and knew they had a job to do. Just read the New York Times front page story today.

    So, keep drinking the far left Kool-Aid. I hope all is well in the Land of Oz.

    Kool-Aid+Alert.JPG
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 7:52 PM GMT
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidhttp://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/08/20/victory-in-iraq-by-us-forces/

    I know I talk about these people a lot...but I am truly fascinated by them. Their ability to disregard aspects of reality in defense of their narrow world views and ideologies is just incredible.

    "August 18 SHOULD be VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY if for no other reason than to mark then end of the success that our original mission, further supplemented by the brave decision by President Bush to launch the surge in 2007, is complete. Yes, US forces will remain as advisors for another year. But “The War” in Iraq is over."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."


    In short, we should celebrate the deaths of soldiers and civilians who died in an illegal war.

    Be proud of the fact that we "completed the mission" which...if you read the post is not clearly laid out nor in line with what was stated at the start of the war.

    Then be happy we did not find WMD's...you know..because that's not what we went to look for in the first place....>sigh<


    The war wasn't illegal...at the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq, Britain and the United States signed a cease fire prohibiting Saddam Hussein from running any offensive military action (very basic interpretation). He violated that cease fire 16 times between the end of the first Gulf War and the US led invasion in 2003. Hence, they had full authority to restart the conflict 16 tiems.

    Secondly, the US Congress authorized the action into Iraq in early 2003 with bipartisan support. The intelligence turned out to be bad, but that doesn't make the war illegal.

    Yeah, when conflict ends you typical celebrate the "victory" if you so earned one. These soldiers knew what their purpose over there was, and knew they had a job to do. Just read the New York Times front page story today.

    So, keep drinking the far left Kool-Aid. I hope all is well in the Land of Oz.

    Kool-Aid+Alert.JPG


    No where in your post, or the post on GP do they talk about the war on "Terror", which...If I'm not mistaken was the mission at hand. Because you know...they attacked and sacred us so we had to retaliate...
  • yankeesblazer...

    Posts: 243

    Aug 20, 2010 8:05 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidhttp://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/08/20/victory-in-iraq-by-us-forces/

    I know I talk about these people a lot...but I am truly fascinated by them. Their ability to disregard aspects of reality in defense of their narrow world views and ideologies is just incredible.

    "August 18 SHOULD be VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY if for no other reason than to mark then end of the success that our original mission, further supplemented by the brave decision by President Bush to launch the surge in 2007, is complete. Yes, US forces will remain as advisors for another year. But “The War” in Iraq is over."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."


    In short, we should celebrate the deaths of soldiers and civilians who died in an illegal war.

    Be proud of the fact that we "completed the mission" which...if you read the post is not clearly laid out nor in line with what was stated at the start of the war.

    Then be happy we did not find WMD's...you know..because that's not what we went to look for in the first place....>sigh<


    The war wasn't illegal...at the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq, Britain and the United States signed a cease fire prohibiting Saddam Hussein from running any offensive military action (very basic interpretation). He violated that cease fire 16 times between the end of the first Gulf War and the US led invasion in 2003. Hence, they had full authority to restart the conflict 16 tiems.

    Secondly, the US Congress authorized the action into Iraq in early 2003 with bipartisan support. The intelligence turned out to be bad, but that doesn't make the war illegal.

    Yeah, when conflict ends you typical celebrate the "victory" if you so earned one. These soldiers knew what their purpose over there was, and knew they had a job to do. Just read the New York Times front page story today.

    So, keep drinking the far left Kool-Aid. I hope all is well in the Land of Oz.

    Kool-Aid+Alert.JPG


    No where in your post, or the post on GP do they talk about the war on "Terror", which...If I'm not mistaken was the mission at hand. Because you know...they attacked and sacred us so we had to retaliate...


    Your lack of knowledge of what led up to the conflict is startling, but not surprising. Go do some research, then get back to me. It's not even worth my time to converse with somebody who thinks the entire scope of the "War on Terror" is to attack those who directly attacked us.

    Anybody with half a brain knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired/manufactured weapons of mass destruction, either he or those under his command would have sold them to terror groups for use in terror attacks against the United States and/or their allies. We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.

    The intelligence was bad, no doubt. Saddam truly wanted the western intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs because if they believed, Iran would believe. That's who he was afraid of. At the outset of the first Gulf War, Iraq (which had the world's 3rd largest military), sent loads of equipment across the border and into Iran to avoid capture/destruction by the invading US forces. Iran, still fresh from the Iraq/Iran conflict, confiscated all this equipment and further crippled Iraq's defenses. Saddam was always weary of an Iranian invasion that would topple him and his government. The only trump card he had was making the world believe he had WMDs. As long as the western governments believed he had WMDs, Iran would never dare invade. The reason Saddam stayed defiant to the very end was because he believed Bush was bluffing...he was wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to prohibit Saddam from passing off any WMDs he had to terrorist groups. He didn't have the WMDs of course, as we found out, but every respected intelligence agency in the world, along with Vladimir Putin himself, was on record saying Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam fed this false intelligence by his own actions, the reasons for which I stated above.

    Please do some research next time before posting. Thanks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 8:13 PM GMT
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidhttp://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/08/20/victory-in-iraq-by-us-forces/

    I know I talk about these people a lot...but I am truly fascinated by them. Their ability to disregard aspects of reality in defense of their narrow world views and ideologies is just incredible.

    "August 18 SHOULD be VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY if for no other reason than to mark then end of the success that our original mission, further supplemented by the brave decision by President Bush to launch the surge in 2007, is complete. Yes, US forces will remain as advisors for another year. But “The War” in Iraq is over."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."


    In short, we should celebrate the deaths of soldiers and civilians who died in an illegal war.

    Be proud of the fact that we "completed the mission" which...if you read the post is not clearly laid out nor in line with what was stated at the start of the war.

    Then be happy we did not find WMD's...you know..because that's not what we went to look for in the first place....>sigh<


    The war wasn't illegal...at the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq, Britain and the United States signed a cease fire prohibiting Saddam Hussein from running any offensive military action (very basic interpretation). He violated that cease fire 16 times between the end of the first Gulf War and the US led invasion in 2003. Hence, they had full authority to restart the conflict 16 tiems.

    Secondly, the US Congress authorized the action into Iraq in early 2003 with bipartisan support. The intelligence turned out to be bad, but that doesn't make the war illegal.

    Yeah, when conflict ends you typical celebrate the "victory" if you so earned one. These soldiers knew what their purpose over there was, and knew they had a job to do. Just read the New York Times front page story today.

    So, keep drinking the far left Kool-Aid. I hope all is well in the Land of Oz.

    Kool-Aid+Alert.JPG


    No where in your post, or the post on GP do they talk about the war on "Terror", which...If I'm not mistaken was the mission at hand. Because you know...they attacked and sacred us so we had to retaliate...


    Your lack of knowledge of what led up to the conflict is startling, but not surprising. Go do some research, then get back to me. It's not even worth my time to converse with somebody who thinks the entire scope of the "War on Terror" is to attack those who directly attacked us.

    Anybody with half a brain knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired/manufactured weapons of mass destruction, either he or those under his command would have sold them to terror groups for use in terror attacks against the United States and/or their allies. We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.

    The intelligence was bad, no doubt. Saddam truly wanted the western intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs because if they believed, Iran would believe. That's who he was afraid of. At the outset of the first Gulf War, Iraq (which had the world's 3rd largest military), sent loads of equipment across the border and into Iran to avoid capture/destruction by the invading US forces. Iran, still fresh from the Iraq/Iran conflict, confiscated all this equipment and further crippled Iraq's defenses. Saddam was always weary of an Iranian invasion that would topple him and his government. The only trump card he had was making the world believe he had WMDs. As long as the western governments believed he had WMDs, Iran would never dare invade. The reason Saddam stayed defiant to the very end was because he believed Bush was bluffing...he was wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to prohibit Saddam from passing off any WMDs he had to terrorist groups. He didn't have the WMDs of course, as we found out, but every respected intelligence agency in the world, along with Vladimir Putin himself, was on record saying Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam fed this false intelligence by his own actions, the reasons for which I stated above.

    Please do some research next time before posting. Thanks.


    I do think bush acted preemptively. He should have waited for more evidence of these alleged WMD and gotten more approval from other nations. Some times I wonder if Saddam would have been better off in power.

    Claiming that the invasion of iraq was justified because Saddam could have/would eventually have sold weapons to terrorists is kind of tenuous because you could almost excuse going to war with Lybia or any other country ruled by a despot capable of doing the same thing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 8:20 PM GMT
    yankeesblazerscowboys said


    Your lack of knowledge of what led up to the conflict is startling, but not surprising. Go do some research, then get back to me. It's not even worth my time to converse with somebody who thinks the entire scope of the "War on Terror" is to attack those who directly attacked us.

    Anybody with half a brain knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired/manufactured weapons of mass destruction, either he or those under his command would have sold them to terror groups for use in terror attacks against the United States and/or their allies. We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.

    The intelligence was bad, no doubt. Saddam truly wanted the western intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs because if they believed, Iran would believe. That's who he was afraid of. At the outset of the first Gulf War, Iraq (which had the world's 3rd largest military), sent loads of equipment across the border and into Iran to avoid capture/destruction by the invading US forces. Iran, still fresh from the Iraq/Iran conflict, confiscated all this equipment and further crippled Iraq's defenses. Saddam was always weary of an Iranian invasion that would topple him and his government. The only trump card he had was making the world believe he had WMDs. As long as the western governments believed he had WMDs, Iran would never dare invade. The reason Saddam stayed defiant to the very end was because he believed Bush was bluffing...he was wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to prohibit Saddam from passing off any WMDs he had to terrorist groups. He didn't have the WMDs of course, as we found out, but every respected intelligence agency in the world, along with Vladimir Putin himself, was on record saying Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam fed this false intelligence by his own actions, the reasons for which I stated above.

    Please do some research next time before posting. Thanks.


    I've done plenty of research and that doesn't change the fact that even after Bush claimed "mission accomplished" we stayed.

    This was billed as a war on terror and to protect American interests, and yet we went for a dictator, found no WMD's, and found out that we have probably been in the wrong country all along. In the process we gave into absolute fear of anything that was brown and so much as sneezed, involved our entire country in a holy war, and got the ball rolling on the destruction of our economy.

    I mean before you even take into account the MASSIVE causalities, shady dealings done by those in command and mercs, there is very, war crimes, there is very little to celebrate
  • yankeesblazer...

    Posts: 243

    Aug 20, 2010 8:23 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidhttp://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/08/20/victory-in-iraq-by-us-forces/

    I know I talk about these people a lot...but I am truly fascinated by them. Their ability to disregard aspects of reality in defense of their narrow world views and ideologies is just incredible.

    "August 18 SHOULD be VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY if for no other reason than to mark then end of the success that our original mission, further supplemented by the brave decision by President Bush to launch the surge in 2007, is complete. Yes, US forces will remain as advisors for another year. But “The War” in Iraq is over."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."

    "We’ve made mistakes. We found no WMD that the entire world’s intel apparatus said we would. As in past wars, America leaves no imperialist governance behind. We helped formed a democratic state in the Middle East that now must continue to bloom on its own. We stole no oil. We will only leave Americans in Iraq at the behest of its people, or where the blood of the brave have fallen into the hot sand and are never to be returned to the homeland."


    In short, we should celebrate the deaths of soldiers and civilians who died in an illegal war.

    Be proud of the fact that we "completed the mission" which...if you read the post is not clearly laid out nor in line with what was stated at the start of the war.

    Then be happy we did not find WMD's...you know..because that's not what we went to look for in the first place....>sigh<


    The war wasn't illegal...at the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq, Britain and the United States signed a cease fire prohibiting Saddam Hussein from running any offensive military action (very basic interpretation). He violated that cease fire 16 times between the end of the first Gulf War and the US led invasion in 2003. Hence, they had full authority to restart the conflict 16 tiems.

    Secondly, the US Congress authorized the action into Iraq in early 2003 with bipartisan support. The intelligence turned out to be bad, but that doesn't make the war illegal.

    Yeah, when conflict ends you typical celebrate the "victory" if you so earned one. These soldiers knew what their purpose over there was, and knew they had a job to do. Just read the New York Times front page story today.

    So, keep drinking the far left Kool-Aid. I hope all is well in the Land of Oz.

    Kool-Aid+Alert.JPG


    No where in your post, or the post on GP do they talk about the war on "Terror", which...If I'm not mistaken was the mission at hand. Because you know...they attacked and sacred us so we had to retaliate...


    Your lack of knowledge of what led up to the conflict is startling, but not surprising. Go do some research, then get back to me. It's not even worth my time to converse with somebody who thinks the entire scope of the "War on Terror" is to attack those who directly attacked us.

    Anybody with half a brain knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired/manufactured weapons of mass destruction, either he or those under his command would have sold them to terror groups for use in terror attacks against the United States and/or their allies. We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.

    The intelligence was bad, no doubt. Saddam truly wanted the western intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs because if they believed, Iran would believe. That's who he was afraid of. At the outset of the first Gulf War, Iraq (which had the world's 3rd largest military), sent loads of equipment across the border and into Iran to avoid capture/destruction by the invading US forces. Iran, still fresh from the Iraq/Iran conflict, confiscated all this equipment and further crippled Iraq's defenses. Saddam was always weary of an Iranian invasion that would topple him and his government. The only trump card he had was making the world believe he had WMDs. As long as the western governments believed he had WMDs, Iran would never dare invade. The reason Saddam stayed defiant to the very end was because he believed Bush was bluffing...he was wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to prohibit Saddam from passing off any WMDs he had to terrorist groups. He didn't have the WMDs of course, as we found out, but every respected intelligence agency in the world, along with Vladimir Putin himself, was on record saying Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam fed this false intelligence by his own actions, the reasons for which I stated above.

    Please do some research next time before posting. Thanks.


    I do think bush acted preemptively. He should have waited for more evidence of these alleged WMD and gotten more approval from other nations. Some times I wonder if Saddam would have been better off in power.

    Claiming that the invasion of iraq was justified because Saddam could have/would eventually have sold weapons to terrorists is kind of tenuous because you could almost excuse going to war with Lybia or any other country ruled by a despot capable of doing the same thing.



    I didn't intend my post to be a complete defense/personal justification for the war. It could have been run better from beginning to end, no doubt. I think somebody would have to be completely blind not to see the many flaws.

    I was simply providing information to DoomsDay as for the rationale the Bush administration used for going in. No, it wasn't "illegal" as he stated. We had noble intentions, but obviously not finding WMDs leaves the Western nations with a lot of egg on their face that we could have done without. Mistakes were made, and we should learn from them going forward.

    I personally don't believe, all things being equal, that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power. But, I do admit, I am looking at that point simply from a humanitarian point of view and not an economic/geopolitical standpoint.
  • yankeesblazer...

    Posts: 243

    Aug 20, 2010 8:34 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said


    Your lack of knowledge of what led up to the conflict is startling, but not surprising. Go do some research, then get back to me. It's not even worth my time to converse with somebody who thinks the entire scope of the "War on Terror" is to attack those who directly attacked us.

    Anybody with half a brain knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired/manufactured weapons of mass destruction, either he or those under his command would have sold them to terror groups for use in terror attacks against the United States and/or their allies. We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.

    The intelligence was bad, no doubt. Saddam truly wanted the western intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs because if they believed, Iran would believe. That's who he was afraid of. At the outset of the first Gulf War, Iraq (which had the world's 3rd largest military), sent loads of equipment across the border and into Iran to avoid capture/destruction by the invading US forces. Iran, still fresh from the Iraq/Iran conflict, confiscated all this equipment and further crippled Iraq's defenses. Saddam was always weary of an Iranian invasion that would topple him and his government. The only trump card he had was making the world believe he had WMDs. As long as the western governments believed he had WMDs, Iran would never dare invade. The reason Saddam stayed defiant to the very end was because he believed Bush was bluffing...he was wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to prohibit Saddam from passing off any WMDs he had to terrorist groups. He didn't have the WMDs of course, as we found out, but every respected intelligence agency in the world, along with Vladimir Putin himself, was on record saying Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam fed this false intelligence by his own actions, the reasons for which I stated above.

    Please do some research next time before posting. Thanks.


    I've done plenty of research and that doesn't change the fact that even after Bush claimed "mission accomplished" we stayed.

    This was billed as a war on terror and to protect American interests, and yet we went for a dictator, found no WMD's, and found out that we have probably been in the wrong country all along. In the process we gave into absolute fear of anything that was brown and so much as sneezed, involved our entire country in a holy war, and got the ball rolling on the destruction of our economy.

    I mean before you even take into account the MASSIVE causalities, shady dealings done by those in command and mercs, there is very, war crimes, there is very little to celebrate


    Okay, you are a Kool-Aid drinker. I thought you were serious, but you aren't. Say hi to the Tin-Man for me!

    Kool-Aid+Alert.JPG
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 8:42 PM GMT
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said


    Your lack of knowledge of what led up to the conflict is startling, but not surprising. Go do some research, then get back to me. It's not even worth my time to converse with somebody who thinks the entire scope of the "War on Terror" is to attack those who directly attacked us.

    Anybody with half a brain knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired/manufactured weapons of mass destruction, either he or those under his command would have sold them to terror groups for use in terror attacks against the United States and/or their allies. We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.

    The intelligence was bad, no doubt. Saddam truly wanted the western intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs because if they believed, Iran would believe. That's who he was afraid of. At the outset of the first Gulf War, Iraq (which had the world's 3rd largest military), sent loads of equipment across the border and into Iran to avoid capture/destruction by the invading US forces. Iran, still fresh from the Iraq/Iran conflict, confiscated all this equipment and further crippled Iraq's defenses. Saddam was always weary of an Iranian invasion that would topple him and his government. The only trump card he had was making the world believe he had WMDs. As long as the western governments believed he had WMDs, Iran would never dare invade. The reason Saddam stayed defiant to the very end was because he believed Bush was bluffing...he was wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to prohibit Saddam from passing off any WMDs he had to terrorist groups. He didn't have the WMDs of course, as we found out, but every respected intelligence agency in the world, along with Vladimir Putin himself, was on record saying Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam fed this false intelligence by his own actions, the reasons for which I stated above.

    Please do some research next time before posting. Thanks.


    I've done plenty of research and that doesn't change the fact that even after Bush claimed "mission accomplished" we stayed.

    This was billed as a war on terror and to protect American interests, and yet we went for a dictator, found no WMD's, and found out that we have probably been in the wrong country all along. In the process we gave into absolute fear of anything that was brown and so much as sneezed, involved our entire country in a holy war, and got the ball rolling on the destruction of our economy.

    I mean before you even take into account the MASSIVE causalities, shady dealings done by those in command and mercs, there is very, war crimes, there is very little to celebrate


    Okay, you are a Kool-Aid drinker. I thought you were serious, but you aren't. Say hi to the Tin-Man for me!

    Kool-Aid+Alert.JPG


    You must be quite happy with your ignorance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 9:16 PM GMT
    yankeesblazerscowboys said

    We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.


    I love how people who argue against the war leave this little detail out...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    5,000 innocent people dead and 11,000 injured. But of course you cant mention that because it would discredit your arguments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 9:27 PM GMT
    hazardous said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.


    I love how people who argue against the war leave this little detail out...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    5,000 innocent people dead and 11,000 injured. But of course you cant mention that because it would discredit your arguments.

    pffffttttt...that's nothing. WAY more Iraqis were killed during the Iraq war. Since you're using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 9:28 PM GMT
    hazardous said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said

    We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.


    I love how people who argue against the war leave this little detail out...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    5,000 innocent people dead and 11,000 injured. But of course you cant mention that because it would discredit your arguments.


    And I love how people use that in defense of the war...we didnt invade Rwanda, we don't invade Sri Lanka or Darfaur.

    That was a a god awful thing he did, but don't use it in defense of the war, he should have been removed from power, but not like that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 9:30 PM GMT
    1969er said
    hazardous said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.


    I love how people who argue against the war leave this little detail out...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    5,000 innocent people dead and 11,000 injured. But of course you cant mention that because it would discredit your arguments.

    pffffttttt...that's nothing. WAY more Iraqis were killed during the Iraq war. Since you're using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War


    And way more than were killed on 9/11
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 9:53 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    1969er said
    hazardous said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.


    I love how people who argue against the war leave this little detail out...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    5,000 innocent people dead and 11,000 injured. But of course you cant mention that because it would discredit your arguments.

    pffffttttt...that's nothing. WAY more Iraqis were killed during the Iraq war. Since you're using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War


    And way more than were killed on 9/11


    You're joking right? 2985 people were killed on 9/11, and why does it even matter how many people were killed??!! Still sounds to me like you are excusing genocide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 9:56 PM GMT
    hazardous said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    1969er said
    hazardous said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.


    I love how people who argue against the war leave this little detail out...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    5,000 innocent people dead and 11,000 injured. But of course you cant mention that because it would discredit your arguments.

    pffffttttt...that's nothing. WAY more Iraqis were killed during the Iraq war. Since you're using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War


    And way more than were killed on 9/11


    You're joking right? 2985 people were killed on 9/11, and why does it even matter how many people were killed??!! Still sounds to me like you are excusing genocide.


    I'm excusing genocide? The American people excused genocide when they turned a blind eye to the rest of the issues going on like I stated. It matters how many were killed because people love to bring up 9/11 but ignore the numbers of dead because of the war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 10:00 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said


    Your lack of knowledge of what led up to the conflict is startling, but not surprising. Go do some research, then get back to me. It's not even worth my time to converse with somebody who thinks the entire scope of the "War on Terror" is to attack those who directly attacked us.

    Anybody with half a brain knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired/manufactured weapons of mass destruction, either he or those under his command would have sold them to terror groups for use in terror attacks against the United States and/or their allies. We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.

    The intelligence was bad, no doubt. Saddam truly wanted the western intelligence agencies to believe he had WMDs because if they believed, Iran would believe. That's who he was afraid of. At the outset of the first Gulf War, Iraq (which had the world's 3rd largest military), sent loads of equipment across the border and into Iran to avoid capture/destruction by the invading US forces. Iran, still fresh from the Iraq/Iran conflict, confiscated all this equipment and further crippled Iraq's defenses. Saddam was always weary of an Iranian invasion that would topple him and his government. The only trump card he had was making the world believe he had WMDs. As long as the western governments believed he had WMDs, Iran would never dare invade. The reason Saddam stayed defiant to the very end was because he believed Bush was bluffing...he was wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to prohibit Saddam from passing off any WMDs he had to terrorist groups. He didn't have the WMDs of course, as we found out, but every respected intelligence agency in the world, along with Vladimir Putin himself, was on record saying Saddam had the WMDs. Saddam fed this false intelligence by his own actions, the reasons for which I stated above.

    Please do some research next time before posting. Thanks.


    I've done plenty of research and that doesn't change the fact that even after Bush claimed "mission accomplished" we stayed.

    This was billed as a war on terror and to protect American interests, and yet we went for a dictator, found no WMD's, and found out that we have probably been in the wrong country all along. In the process we gave into absolute fear of anything that was brown and so much as sneezed, involved our entire country in a holy war, and got the ball rolling on the destruction of our economy.

    I mean before you even take into account the MASSIVE causalities, shady dealings done by those in command and mercs, there is very, war crimes, there is very little to celebrate


    You don't think the war in Iraq was a "war on Terror" ?

    Maybe you could explain that to the 143 Dujayl villagers and the more than 1500 others imprisioned for years.
    http://www.kumawar.com/opbint/overview.php

    Maybe you would like to tell the as many as 182,000 kurds killed in the Anfal Campaign that they wern't victoms of terror.
    http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/events_anfal.html

    Perhaps there was no terror when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
    http://www.answers.com/topic/kuwait-oil-fires-persian-gulf-war

    Maybe the Marsh Arabs are are delusional, there was no terror involved in the Shi'ite Campaigns and the distruction of the marshes.
    http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/madan-iraqs-marsh-arabs

    Maybe the question should be, why did we support Saddam and turn a blind eye and what the hell took us so long to do anything about him?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 10:02 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    hazardous said
    yankeesblazerscowboys said

    We saw what he was capable of when he used chemical weapons on his own people (thus making him a war criminal worthy of removal just for that), so it is very logical to believe that he would have no problem attacking people of other nations in a similar manner.


    I love how people who argue against the war leave this little detail out...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    5,000 innocent people dead and 11,000 injured. But of course you cant mention that because it would discredit your arguments.


    And I love how people use that in defense of the war...we didnt invade Rwanda, we don't invade Sri Lanka or Darfaur.

    That was a a god awful thing he did, but don't use it in defense of the war, he should have been removed from power, but not like that.


    Embargoes and sanctions were not going to loosen Saddam's hold on Iraq. What the country needed was a regime change, and that doesn't come from treaties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 10:05 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said

    I'm excusing genocide? The American people excused genocide when they turned a blind eye to the rest of the issues going on like I stated. It matters how many were killed because people love to bring up 9/11 but ignore the numbers of dead because of the war.


    So your objection on why the Iraqi war was wrong to stop genocide was because we weren't involved in stopping all genocide around the world? Does that not seem like flawed logic to you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 10:07 PM GMT
    Just another country america felt compelled to interfere with.
    Troops pull out, despite continuing instability, leaving civilians to perish under whatever new terror may arise from an internal power struggle.
    Sounds somewhat familiar. How many lives were lost after troops pulled out of Vietnam?
    Perhaps the US should focus more on its domestic policy rather than interfering in other countries international ones.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 20, 2010 11:23 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidIn short, we should celebrate the deaths of soldiers and civilians who died in an illegal war.

    How is/was the Iraq war "illegal?"

    Concrete, specfic, actual legally viable facts please.




    READ THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
    THEY ARE CONCRETE, SPECIFIC, AND ACTUAL LEGALLY VIABLE FACTS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2010 11:32 PM GMT
    Mizzoni2x2 saidJust another country america felt compelled to interfere with.
    Troops pull out, despite continuing instability, leaving civilians to perish under whatever new terror may arise from an internal power struggle.
    Sounds somewhat familiar. How many lives were lost after troops pulled out of Vietnam?
    Perhaps the US should focus more on its domestic policy rather than interfering in other countries international ones.

    Maybe the schools in the UK are not covering recent history, but you might be interested to learn that the UK was a partner of the US in Iraq.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Aug 21, 2010 5:50 AM GMT
    Glad we are done in Iraq and hope that Afghanistan will be around the corner soon. I think down the road history will shine a better light on the War in Iraq...