Cheney is out of his mind

[ecduzitgood]

Where are the retractions (someone is stating their new opinion)? Any actual WMD is a fact. Does it have to be placed in front of you for it to actually exsist? How many WMD's had to be found for them to exsist? No matter the amount, any is proof of it's exsistence?
Think about it..6 months to hide or dispose of the weapons...give a drug dealer 6 minutes to hide his drugs before the cops come in. Do you think he could do it? The area (Iraq) is like a giant litterbox full of sand.
What about the WMD's we supplied/sold Iraq? Yeah; those did'nt exsist either. Think about it...does that make sense? I will gladly state a retraction if proven incorrect and have tried to be open minded. Hard hold in your hand evidence trumps someones words.

I may sound condescending but you still insist they never did exsist and say that WMD's were the reason for the war. It wasn't the sole reason for the war.

I am leaving now so when I return late Sunday I'll read any facts you may use as weapons to change my opinion.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Where are the retractions (someone is stating their new opinion)? Any actual WMD is a fact. Does it have to be placed in front of you for it to actually exsist? How many WMD's had to be found for them to exsist? No matter the amount, any is proof of it's exsistence?
Think about it..6 months to hide or dispose of the weapons...give a drug dealer 6 minutes to hide his drugs before the cops come in. Do you think he could do it? The area (Iraq) is like a giant litterbox full of sand.
What about the WMD's we supplied/sold Iraq? Yeah; those did'nt exsist either. Think about it...does that make sense? I will gladly state a retraction if proven incorrect and have tried to be open minded. Hard hold in your hand evidence trumps someones words.

I may sound condescending but you still insist they never did exsist and say that WMD's were the reason for the war. It wasn't the sole reason for the war.

I am leaving now so when I return late Sunday I'll read any facts you may use as weapons to change my opinion.

I haven't insisted Saddam "never possessed WMDs." The hundreds of thousands of Kurds killed by gas in the 80s proves that he possessed them at one point. However, there is little to no proof he built up stockpiles after inspectors left in 1998. The lead UN inspector had confirmed 90-95% of Saddam's weapons were destroyed - along with the other 5-10% more than likely destroyed prior to inspections.

The US is capable of finding secret underground nuclear facilities in Iran, finding Saddam in a random hole on a farm and knowing when N. Korea is readying for new missile tests - you're telling me they couldn't track multiple entire warehouses worth of weapons being transported? Not to mention the machinery required to make those weapons. In that case, Saddam must also have done an excellent job making the weapon manufacturing locations look like they hadn't been used for years.

What were the other reasons for the Iraq war?
Saddam supporting terrorism? Bush's own CIA director stated that there was no qualified connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. After the US invasion, the lack of a connection has been confirmed.

Then there's always the "well he tried to kill my daddy" reason.

The United States is not the world's police force. If the threat from Iraq was so severe, Bush should not have had any problem getting all of our Allies on board. I'm sure today, there are a lot of foreign leaders breathing a sigh of relief that they didn't believe the Bush administration's loosely strung together facts, fabricated information and inaccurate "intelligence".

There was absolutely no international gain by invading Iraq. We're no less at risk with Saddam out of power, than we were with him in power - if anything, we're more at risk.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

There was absolutely no international gain by invading Iraq. We're no less at risk with Saddam out of power, than we were with him in power - if anything, we're more at risk.

Hypothetical and IMO wrong. Not to mention what would have happened when his brutal sons took power. Saddam and his family killed thousands and thousands of thier own people. I guess that's just not important either. He was Ok in power in your book.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Hypothetical and IMO wrong. Not to mention what would have happened when his brutal sons took power. Saddam and his family killed thousands and thousands of thier own people. I guess that's just not important either. He was Ok in power in your book.

If hypothetical and wrong, explain and support the reasons why.

I don't think it was Ok for Saddam to be in power, just like I don't think it's ok for many of the leaders of African countries to be in power. However, the US *is not the world's police force*, something you have agreed with me on numerous times. Sorry to everyone else, but we have enough of our own problems in this country. When we don't have veterans sleeping on park benches, children in soup kitchens and an ever increasing crime rate nation-wide, then we can focus on other countries. Until then, it's not our problem to fix on our own - the international community as a whole should step in to fix those problems.

After the WMD reasons and supporting terrorism reasons for war failed, the Bush administration spun the topic to say "hey, Saddam is a really bad guy. We've liberated the Iraqi people. We succeeded." Strangely, that's not at all what the presented reasons for going to war were.

At the end of this, there will be no "success" in Iraq. The "mission" (whatever it's been spun into now) will never be accomplished.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

If hypothetical and wrong, explain and support the reasons why.

I don't think it was Ok for Saddam to be in power, just like I don't think it's ok for many of the leaders of African countries to be in power. However, the US *is not the world's police force*, something you have agreed with me on numerous times. Sorry to everyone else, but we have enough of our own problems in this country. When we don't have veterans sleeping on park benches, children in soup kitchens and an ever increasing crime rate nation-wide, then we can focus on other countries. Until then, it's not our problem to fix on our own - the international community as a whole should step in to fix those problems.

After the WMD reasons and supporting terrorism reasons for war failed, the Bush administration spun the topic to say "hey, Saddam is a really bad guy. We've liberated the Iraqi people. We succeeded." Strangely, that's not at all what the presented reasons for going to war were.

At the end of this, there will be no "success" in Iraq. The "mission" (whatever it's been spun into now) will never be accomplished.

You are 100% wrong saying that we are not the worlds police force, we have always been the worlds police force, we are still in Korea and Japan. Kuwait started this whole mess in the middle east. We should never had stopped the Jews in the six day war. The only reason that it was a six day war is because the US stopped them from conquering the rest of the middle east.

We have not liberated the Iragi people, they can't have a barcadi and coke without thinking they may be bombed while sitting at a sidewalk cafe.

There were WMD's, ask the Kurds when 80,000 women and children were bombed and gased in one day in 1988 or 89. Apparently you do not think 80,000 is mass destruction.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

There were WMD's, ask the Kurds when 80,000 women and children were bombed and gased in one day in 1988 or 89. Apparently you do not think 80,000 is mass destruction.

Apparently you did not read the entire thread. I never denied that Saddam possessed WMDs *at one time*. However, there were not the massive stockpiles and manufacturing facilities as reported during the buildup to war.

[spence]

Johnny, why are you letting them flog you around with such simple rhetorical trickery?

Funny part is, it's probably unintentional

-spence

[belmont116]

Fly Rod;" We should never had stopped the Jews in the six day war. The only reason that it was a six day war is because the US stopped them from conquering the rest of the middle east."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree with much of what you have wriiten previouly, on the above quote I hope you were kidding but as a friend of Isreal I believe they could not have "Conquerd the rest of the Middle East" They could have essentialy destoyed most of the Arab countrys connventional armies,(heck they have had to essentialy do that several times. Lets look at some numbers,these are latest I could find with fast search but give accurate idea of the scope of situation. Isreal: Population APROX. 6 Million. Jewish people despised by most of the following. Saudi Arabia:Population apox. 22 Million, Eygpt : Aprox. 65 Million, Syria around 16 million, Jordan 4 million+, Iraq 35 Million. Lets be realistic. It would just NOT be do able for Israel to occupy an area the size of Middle east unless they change the saying "NEVER AGAIN" to- Lets Do IT TO THEM. Not politically possable, moraly wrong and would destroy our friends the Israelies in short order.I,ll stop there but are about a million other reasons why not.Its not even worth the oil most of those countrys sit on. Respectfuly, belmont116