Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Seslikent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet

And remember, no need for personal attacks :-)

Ummm were to start?

#1 Saddam never fought commies, Iraq invaded Iran. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980, Much like they did Kuwait,..but since Iran was viewed as a greater threat to the stability of the worlds oils supply (and with Jimmy Carter at the helm we were very dependent on foreign oil, much like today) A choice was made to support Iraq,..but notice it was NOT a republican in office when that choice was made.

President: Jimmy Carter January 20, 1977 January 20, 1981

#2 Rumsfeld did not sell anyone WMD that’s absurd and doesn’t support a liberal argument very well.

#3 I would be willing to bet a great many liberals had wished you didn’t post.

Let us please please please not talk about accumulating debt or dollar amounts being spent on unnecessary things,

I wouldn’t want to have a bunch of conservatives in here making your web browsing miserable when keywords like Obama, or government spending pop up in their browser searches.

And you watch way to much Micheal Moore, try reading news instead of watching a propaganda movie that made him millions.

The Bin Laden family members flown out of the country were flown out because they would have likely been targeted by angry Americans bent on revenge.

Osama Bin Laden was disowned by his family years prior to 9-11,..and in Muslim/Arabic terms that’s pretty much officially it,..period. It’s as if he didn’t exist to them anymore.

I appreciate a logical argument, after all were all Americans here (I think)

But this,..

And about the thousands of insurgents? None of them would have ever shown their faces in Iraq if the US hadn’t invaded. It’s a matter of public record that Saddam Hussein never considered Al-Qaeda an ally, and (some wingnut fantasies notwithstanding) he never had any kind of agreement with them.

See friend that’s exactly my point. Had we not gone on the offensive in Iraq, in that region of the world those thousands of insurgents, riding the wave of “Hell ya! we just struck a blow to the great Satan!” would have,..guaranteed,..found a way to follow up in some way shape form with an attack on American civilians somewhere in the world to include our own soil possibly.

But thanks for the civil response

ScoutSSG Says:
Capacity: Iraqi aircraft shelled Halabja with chemical weapons on 16 March 1988.
20 years ago. Or 15 years before the US invasion of Iraq.

Means: Iraqi missile technology, and I personally saw components of these (most had been destroyed long before my arrival but the pieces remained)
None of which could reach the US, could they? You could be honest and say that you were fighting on behalf of Israel, an american ally, but don’t bring up these missiles and then speak of mall cops and airport guards.

Will: Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, had gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believed he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him.
We all agree that he was a tyrant and a despot. No one has claimed that he was a nice guy or a decent fellow. But let’s look at the math here: there have been hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, since the invasion. So it looks like a case of “burning the village in order to save it”.

And about the thousands of insurgents? None of them would have ever shown their faces in Iraq if the US hadn’t invaded. It’s a matter of public record that Saddam Hussein never considered Al-Qaeda an ally, and (some wingnut fantasies notwithstanding) he never had any kind of agreement with them.

Well here are a couple of facts to support my statement.

Capacity: Iraqi aircraft shelled Halabja with chemical weapons on 16 March 1988, in an attack which left 5,000 dead and 7,000 injured or with long-term illnesses. Reason, Anti government sentiment directed towards the regime of Saddam Husein and a desire to establish a Kurdish state in northern Iraq.

Means: Iraqi missile technology, and I personally saw components of these (most had been destroyed long before my arrival but the pieces remained)
Designations Range
Ababil-100 100 km
Al-Samoud 150 km
Scud-B 300 km
Al Fahd 300 300 km
Al Fahd 500 500 km
Al Hussein 600 km
Al Hijarah 750 km
Al Abbas 900 km
Badr-2000 2,000km
Tammuz-1 2,000 km

Will: Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, had gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believed he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him.

Combined with strong Anti American sentiment. This created a danger to the security of the United States on the heels of the 9-11 attacks were many in the region were scrambling to find ways to support the new war on “the great Satan” as a way of gaining power, favor, and stature amongst the large extremist portions of their populations.

Thousands of foreign insurgents pored into Iraq for an opportunity to fight the “great Satan”.

I suppose they would have remained in there homes and taken no action to kill Americans anywhere in the world (including your local shopping center)

You can continue to sit on your moral high ground and flame those of us who actually had the balls to fight them in their region of the world, so you could take your kids shopping without having to expose them to the mall cops and airport cops carrying machine guns. (like they must endure in Israel and Europe)

So sorry for my chicken hawk, war movie view of the world but real life experiences have tainted my opinions.

Ohh and read the news today? I’d say the extremists have killed more innocent Iraqi’s then we ever did.

I have spent a tour in Iraq and returned from there last June.

1. Many people who disagree with you have served.
2. I don’t necessarily believe your personal claim to special knowledge, so don’t rely on it.

.

ryant430 Says:

Thanks for saying you all support the troops but maybe a little action to back up your words would make things more convincing.

Like say, veterans’ benefits? Or ending an unneccessary war that was started based on lies? Next election, take a look at who the IAVA endorses before bloviating about liberals – it was Dems nearly across the board last year.

.

ryant430 Says:

But I don’t feel as though I was sent there under false pretense.

You don’t “feel” matters of fact, they are simply facts.

Saddam had no WMD capability. Saddam had no ties to terrorists. The rumors collected by the CIA saying otherwise were intentionally picked out of the big intel pile and then “pipelined” past CIA analysts who could have found them false, directly to the office of the Vice President. The summary conclusion that Saddam had WMD’s – Tenet’s “slam dunk” – was backed by no credible evidence whatsoever, and everyone in the White House was or should have been aware of that.

This is all a matter of public record. You can “feel” otherwise all you want, but that doesn’t change what the facts are.

You were sent there under false pretenses, regardless of whether you “feel” that to be the case or not.

.

ryant430 Says:

I believe we have done several good things for the people of Iraq. I know cuz I have seen those things. Providing food and clean water. Teaching them classes on health and hygiene. How to check for breast cancer etc…Working with Iraqi Army and Police. They are genuinely very sincere people. I feel even if we may have been there for the wrong reasons or even if things fall apart immediately after we leave. What I saw happen while I was there was worth it. I lost friends while I was there as well. None of those men would say they died in vain.

Nobody here’s saying that soldiers haven’t done good things, and nobody here is blaming the soldiers for the orders they followed (except for certain cases such as Abu Ghraib where their orders were in blatant violation of military ethical standards).

But we, the citizens of the U.S.A. are holding the elected officials who work for us accountable for the choice they made to send our soldiers to an unneccessary and unjust war. That is our right. We’re not blaming the troops, we’re blaming the President. There is a difference. Unfortunately, no matter how well the soldiers do their jobs there, and no matter how much good they might do to offset the masive collateral damage, that still won’t create a justification for Bush’s choice to have started the war in the first place.

Such a choice can’t be written off as a mere “mistake.” The very concept of responsibility is that at high enough levels of power, it shouldn’t matter whether something was intentional malfeasance or an honest error. The number of dead and dying are the same either way, and therefore one should be more careful. To be such an idiot in the first place and to run for the Presidency anyways, is as much of a moral crime as using the Presidency to kill large numbers of people on purpose. That’s how responsibility works.

All they had to do was turn over Tenet’s cover page and look at the underlying evidence. All they had to do was ask “what’s the intel data on this?” It would have taken just a few hours to go over the collected evidence and analysis (plus actually deciding to have the data analyzed in the first place) to come to the conclusion that there wasn’t any credible proof that Saddam had either WMD’s or ties to Al Qaeda. But Bush and everybody else in the White House intentionally chose not to look too closely at that report, chose not to flip over the summary page to see that all of the rest was effectively blank.

Look, it’s a good thing that we have soldiers who follow orders. That’s great, and within broad boundaries of basic decency, I don’t blame soldiers for carrying out any orders given to them. But in order to continue to have an effective military, there’s a basic unspoken two-way deal that the civilian who controls the military should only use them for necessary and important purposes. When the President violates that deal (as in Vietnam and Iraq) then we’re left with an outraged citizenry, as well as many veterans being mentally scarred for life. They’re not scarred because the citizens were outraged at the war, they’re scarred for the same reason that the citizens were outraged at the war: it was unjust to begin with.

It looks like you’re dealing with that problem by denial. And if you have to tell yourself for the rest of your life that it was OK for Bush to send you there, then that’s your thing and good luck with it, though I’d prefer you stop trying to convince me. But not all veterans are going to be able to manage your mental trick of refusing to admit what they know to be true, or as you put it, “feeling” otherwise. For many more, legal justice against the perpetrators of that crime will be the only way to find closure, to prove to them that America is really a good place in the final analysis.

.

ryant430 Says:

I don’t know if blaming an administration we voted into office at the time is also wise.

Why not? Who else are we to blame? If some of that blame lands on ourselves as well, then so be it. Maybe we’ll learn something before there’s a next time.

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids! And cheap oil was never for you: it was cheap oil for the oil companies.

“Foreign companies could soon be pumping Iraqi oil for the first time in nearly 40 years. On Tuesday, the government of Iraq opened bids from oil companies interested in helping the country realize its oil production potential.”

I’m sure Big Oil will eventually thank you for your services, though not by lowering oil prices.

Is this how progressives support our troops? Must be.

Gitmo? Ayers? Shoe Bomber? Taliban Boy from Marin County? Zarqaui? Sadaam Hussein? Fort Dix 6? On and on…..

Nobody here ever supported any terrorists, either the ones you’ve listed or any others. By “citation” I mean “link to a site showing an example of a liberal actually supporting or defending a terrorist.”

You are profoundly stupid, you know that?

.

ScoutSSG Says:

..make that two ungrateful nations. (at least the Obamanation half)

You mean the half that supports veterans’ benefits, as opposed to chickenhawks like yourself, who don’t? Quit parade your fake love for “the troops” around, we all know how little it means. Chickenhawks “love” soldiers the same way that cultists “love” their sacrifice just before it is slaughtered in the name of their blood god. In fact, I’d say it’s exactly the same.

.

ScoutSSG Says:

After 9-11 we as a nation (yes you remember how pissed you were) chose to end the terrorist threat to the world by way of military action, Iraq was a part of that. plain and simple.

Iraq had no connections to terrorism or 9/11. Plain and simple. To say otherwise gets into the sort of complexity generated by lying to people.

You know that is a lie. You know it.

It’s been thoroughly documented; no one in the public sphere, not even Bush, stands behind that lie when pressed on it. So how can you dare to come in here and tell us that “Iraq was a part of” the GWOT, “plain and simple?” Are you lying to yourself, or just us?

.

ScoutSSG Says:

The lack of WMD discovery means absolutely nothing, they had the capacity, the means, and the will under Sadam to support Anti American terrorist activities.

Capacity: No capacity was discovered either.
Means: No means were discovered either.
Will: There’s no way to prove that and no reason to think that.

To recap – wrong, wrong, and wrong. As usual.

Furthermore, the notion that Saddam would give WMD’s to Al-Qaeda is laughable on the face of it, provided you know anything beyond “them brown folks shore don’t like us.” Saddam was a secular dictator; Al-Qaeda was a revolutionary religious group. They hated each other as much or more than either hated us.

The reason you don’t know that is because of your intentional ignorance. At some point, you chose not to know any facts about the situation that might interfere with your sports-team cheerleading for war and oppression. While I’m sure it’s been tremendously comfortable for you to never find anything out that challenges the little action movie script you have playing in your head, eventually reality is going to have to intrude on it, because the rest of the world is moving on. The people and policies you champion are evil monsters who have defied the the principles that the U.S.A. was founded on, as well as all universal standards of human decency, all for nothing. Most of the people we’ve killed, detained and tortured were innocent bystanders. There was no reason to do any of it in Iraq. And you – yes you, Mr. war cheerleader – are responsible for all of those unneccessary acts of slaughter and brutality.

You have chosen to be a murderous imbecile and a traitor to everything that the founding fathers of the U.S.A. meant it to stand for. As such, I can’t imagine why you would still think that the opinion of such treasonous moral filth as yourself should hold any weight anywhere. At least be ashamed enough to keep your Goddamned yap shut in polite society.

Or they will call the Iraqi people ungrateful bastards after all we did for them, like bomb their country back to the stone age, killed over 150,000 of their people while displacing millions more, Wow, they really are ungrateful bastards!

Don’t post again and especially since you are a keyboard warrior. You are a poser through and through. Get back to the Red State and all those POS.