Happy Birthday George W. Bush

[Lcyberlina]

I wonder if there will ever be a thread on this board where there won't be any arguing.

447348[/snapback]

 

The day people start to respect others opinions and look for a win-win situation instead of always seeking to "outdo" the other.

 

BTW HI!

[Lcyberlina]

:mischief2 hmmmm interesting! Isn't it weird that we invaded Iraq instead of Iran who actually does pose a "threat" to the US, has strong and CONFIRMED ties to terrorists and has WMDs? Don't you think you are being too naive Legacy? If we were to invade a country for the reasons given to us prior to this quagmire, it would have been Iran, not Iraq. So your "explanation" doesn't hold.

 

 

If you look at the Iranian geography (particularly coastal areas, the strait, and who borders them) it becomes quite obvious why they'll never be targets for any large scale US military ops.

447442[/snapback]

 

It seems interesting then that you'd prefer to invade the wrong country just because it is more geographically "appealing".

[g8trz2003]

geography plays a part in almost every war...and plays a part in keeping countries out of war. A reason we won the Revolutionary war was b/c of geography.

[Lcyberlina]

geography plays a part in almost every war...and plays a part in keeping countries out of war. A reason we won the Revolutionary war was b/c of geography.

447468[/snapback]

 

So you are telling me now that the decision to invade Iraq was due to Geographic reasons? I can understand defending your territory... But invading a far away country for "Geographic" advantage seems not only silly but flat out wrong. Besides, that wasn't the reason Bush gave us... :mischief2

[g8trz2003]

1) I'm not advocating or admonishing the war on Iraq

2) I think tonyi was pointing out that the geography of Iran deters an attack on them. I dont think he meant "we attacked Iraq because their geography suited us better".

[Lcyberlina]

1) I'm not advocating or admonishing the war on Iraq

2) I think tonyi was pointing out that the geography of Iran deters an attack on them. I dont think he meant "we attacked Iraq because their geography suited us better".

447509[/snapback]

 

I understand your point Furman. What I don't get is why wouldn't we invade or do anything against Iran... From the reasons given to us by the Bush administration for going to Iraq, one can conclude that Iran was more of a threat than any other country. It seems kind of hypocritical to say you wouldn't retaliate against a country who poses a greater threat to this country than Iraq ever did, because the geography is not suitable.

[SuperAngels]

Happy Birthday George W. Bush

 

I should remind everybody, the war on Iraq was authorized by the U.S. Congress, minimal research also locates

 

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105?

338) stated that it should be the policy of the United

States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by

Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the

emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; this law was signed by President Clinton.

(Though this law did not authorize military force, it set US policy towards Iraq).

[g8trz2003]

oh no SuperAngels! in fact, Bush tricked all of Congress into authorizing the war....

 

lol :banghead

[RippyO]

Happy Birthday George W. Bush

 

I should remind everybody, the war on Iraq was authorized by the U.S. Congress, minimal research also locates

 

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105?

338) stated that it should be the policy of the United

States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by

Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the

emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; this law was signed by President Clinton.

(Though this law did not authorize military force, it set US policy towards Iraq).

447604[/snapback]

 

Dammit, don't quote facts. You're disrespecting LC's opinion that way.

[legacyofCangelosi]

We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time.

 

Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war?

[Dodge]

We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time.

 

Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war?

448371[/snapback]

 

I guess she wants GWB to let them finish building their nukes. :whistle

 

Jesus, people it's common sense. They want to kick our ass? Well, we kicked their ass first.

 

It is my believe that WMD in Iraq was NEVER GWB's #1 reason for desiring a regime change in Iraq. He was just catering to you libs. A decade is a pretty long time to hide things real well, or ship them out... is it not? :shifty

[Lcyberlina]

We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time.

 

Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war?

448371[/snapback]

 

Tonyi, Legacy,

 

The problem here is that we shouldn't have done "anything" about each country. Iran e Iraq did not do anything against America. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq had no ties with Al-Qaeda, plus we now know that their WMDs were not there either. From the original reasons given to us by this administration, our invasion to Iraq is not justified.

 

"People" like me continue to cite other countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, because we want to put some sense into all this madness... Those other countries had confirmed ties to terrorists and had confirmed WMDs programs (Iran)... From those reasons given to us to invade Iraq, those other countries seem to fit the criteria better. However, this doesn't mean we want military action against those countries. We just want you to understand how ridiculous is that we invaded Iraq and continue to lose soldiers there. It is more ridiculous than bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers come from or Iran where they are developing WMDs and their government is notoriously extremist.

 

The only country that deserved our military action was Afghanistan, because Bin Laden with his surrogates was there and the Taliban was supporting them.

[legacyofCangelosi]

We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time.

 

Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war?

448371[/snapback]

 

Tonyi, Legacy,

 

The problem here is that we shouldn't have done "anything" about each country. Iran e Iraq did not do anything against America. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq had no ties with Al-Qaeda, plus we now know that their WMDs were not there either. From the original reasons given to us by this administration, our invasion to Iraq is not justified.

 

"People" like me continue to cite other countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, because we want to put some sense into all this madness... Those other countries had confirmed ties to terrorists and had confirmed WMDs programs (Iran)... From those reasons given to us to invade Iraq, those other countries seem to fit the criteria better. However, this doesn't mean we want military action against those countries. We just want you to understand how ridiculous is that we invaded Iraq and continue to lose soldiers there. It is more ridiculous than bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers come from or Iran where they are developing WMDs and their government is notoriously extremist.

 

The only country that deserved our military action was Afghanistan, because Bin Laden with his surrogates was there and the Taliban was supporting them.

448445[/snapback]

 

 

I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia.

[Lcyberlina]

I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia.

448452[/snapback]

 

Again, your argument seems to fit other countries better than Iraq.

[Dodge]

I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia.

448452[/snapback]

 

Again, your argument seems to fit other countries better than Iraq.

448457[/snapback]

 

I support hunting down terrorists all over the world. LET'S ROLL!

[legacyofCangelosi]

I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia.

448452[/snapback]

 

Again, your argument seems to fit other countries better than Iraq.

448457[/snapback]

 

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

[Lcyberlina]

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

448476[/snapback]

 

What exactly did Iraq do to the United States if they had no ties to Al-Qaeda and their WMDs programs was long gone?

[Dodge]

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

448476[/snapback]

 

What exactly did Iraq do to the United States if they had no ties to Al-Qaeda and their WMDs programs was long gone?

448488[/snapback]

 

What do you think they would have liked to do had we given them a chance?

 

That's how 9/11 changed our foreign policy Lina. It is no longer "fight as long as you don't throw the first punch."

[legacyofCangelosi]

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

448476[/snapback]

 

What exactly did Iraq do to the United States if they had no ties to Al-Qaeda and their WMDs programs was long gone?

448488[/snapback]

 

 

They had ties to other terorist groups such as black september, they sold arms to other countries that sponsor terrorism, they tried to assassinate a former US president, they violated the treay they signed after the gulf by forming WMD facilities in 1999, they have no record of the WMDs they had before being destroyed.

[Lcyberlina]

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

448476[/snapback]

 

What exactly did Iraq do to the United States if they had no ties to Al-Qaeda and their WMDs programs was long gone?

448488[/snapback]

 

 

They had ties to other terorist groups such as black september, they sold arms to other countries that sponsor terrorism, they tried to assassinate a former US president, they violated the treay they signed after the gulf by forming WMD facilities in 1999, they have no record of the WMDs they had before being destroyed.

448491[/snapback]

 

Again this argument fit other countries better.

[legacyofCangelosi]

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

448476[/snapback]

 

What exactly did Iraq do to the United States if they had no ties to Al-Qaeda and their WMDs programs was long gone?

448488[/snapback]

 

 

They had ties to other terorist groups such as black september, they sold arms to other countries that sponsor terrorism, they tried to assassinate a former US president, they violated the treay they signed after the gulf by forming WMD facilities in 1999, they have no record of the WMDs they had before being destroyed.

448491[/snapback]

 

Again this argument fit other countries better.

448508[/snapback]

 

 

But it fits Iraq. Especially the treaty violation.

[Lcyberlina]

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

448476[/snapback]

 

What exactly did Iraq do to the United States if they had no ties to Al-Qaeda and their WMDs programs was long gone?

448488[/snapback]

 

 

They had ties to other terorist groups such as black september, they sold arms to other countries that sponsor terrorism, they tried to assassinate a former US president, they violated the treay they signed after the gulf by forming WMD facilities in 1999, they have no record of the WMDs they had before being destroyed.

448491[/snapback]

 

Again this argument fit other countries better.

448508[/snapback]

 

 

But it fits Iraq. Especially the treaty violation.

448602[/snapback]

 

:mischief2 So this means we will have to invade Iran or North Korea... They both refuse to comply with International laws about WMDs...

[legacyofCangelosi]

If your argument is we should have invaded other countries instead of Iraq or that there are other countries more threatening than iraq, you could be right, but that Iraq was no threat has no merit.

448476[/snapback]

 

What exactly did Iraq do to the United States if they had no ties to Al-Qaeda and their WMDs programs was long gone?

448488[/snapback]

 

 

They had ties to other terorist groups such as black september, they sold arms to other countries that sponsor terrorism, they tried to assassinate a former US president, they violated the treay they signed after the gulf by forming WMD facilities in 1999, they have no record of the WMDs they had before being destroyed.

448491[/snapback]

 

Again this argument fit other countries better.

448508[/snapback]

 

 

But it fits Iraq. Especially the treaty violation.

448602[/snapback]

 

:mischief2 So this means we will have to invade Iran or North Korea... They both refuse to comply with International laws about WMDs...

448603[/snapback]

 

 

Again that meritless argument. Every situation is different, and those two countries obviously need to be dealt with in such issues. However, invasion is a last resort and not always the best way to solve these situations. We should not have invaded iraq WHEN we did if there was another way to deal with them, because whether you like it or not Iraq had to be dealt with. So as for korea and iran measures need to be taken, and dont be surprised if any country or coalition is forced into military action against north korea witin the next 10 years

[Beinfest4Prez]

We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time.

 

Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war?

448371[/snapback]

 

Tonyi, Legacy,

 

The problem here is that we shouldn't have done "anything" about each country. Iran e Iraq did not do anything against America. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq had no ties with Al-Qaeda, plus we now know that their WMDs were not there either. From the original reasons given to us by this administration, our invasion to Iraq is not justified.

 

"People" like me continue to cite other countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, because we want to put some sense into all this madness... Those other countries had confirmed ties to terrorists and had confirmed WMDs programs (Iran)... From those reasons given to us to invade Iraq, those other countries seem to fit the criteria better. However, this doesn't mean we want military action against those countries. We just want you to understand how ridiculous is that we invaded Iraq and continue to lose soldiers there. It is more ridiculous than bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers come from or Iran where they are developing WMDs and their government is notoriously extremist.

 

The only country that deserved our military action was Afghanistan, because Bin Laden with his surrogates was there and the Taliban was supporting them.

448445[/snapback]

 

 

I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia.

448452[/snapback]

 

 

Black September was Palestinians not Iraqis. And besides that was long before Saddam.

 

 

 

And why the hell would Saddam support Islamic terrorists. He was the most secular leader in the region. You republicans disgust me. You blatantly disregard the facts and believe this military gungho crap. Stop bashing Cyberlina because she tells the truth.

[legacyofCangelosi]

We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time.

 

Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war?

448371[/snapback]

 

Tonyi, Legacy,

 

The problem here is that we shouldn't have done "anything" about each country. Iran e Iraq did not do anything against America. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq had no ties with Al-Qaeda, plus we now know that their WMDs were not there either. From the original reasons given to us by this administration, our invasion to Iraq is not justified.

 

"People" like me continue to cite other countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, because we want to put some sense into all this madness... Those other countries had confirmed ties to terrorists and had confirmed WMDs programs (Iran)... From those reasons given to us to invade Iraq, those other countries seem to fit the criteria better. However, this doesn't mean we want military action against those countries. We just want you to understand how ridiculous is that we invaded Iraq and continue to lose soldiers there. It is more ridiculous than bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers come from or Iran where they are developing WMDs and their government is notoriously extremist.

 

The only country that deserved our military action was Afghanistan, because Bin Laden with his surrogates was there and the Taliban was supporting them.

448445[/snapback]

 

 

I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia.

448452[/snapback]

 

 

Black September was Palestinians not Iraqis. And besides that was long before Saddam.

 

 

 

And why the hell would Saddam support Islamic terrorists. He was the most secular leader in the region. You republicans disgust me. You blatantly disregard the facts and believe this military gungho crap. Stop bashing Cyberlina because she tells the truth.

448661[/snapback]

[/quote

 

 

Check your facts, nidal was there under Saddam's supervision.