Exactly why did America invade Iraq?

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
rainstorm

#21 Postby rainstorm » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:15 pm

the media is blasting bush as i predicted after the reagan funeral. neal boortz has now announced he is predicting a kerry win. should kerry win he will appease terror as he did communism. i think we should take out the iranian nuke plants now, before kerry may be elected. as far as why we invaded iraq, it was for our own safety, and it was a natural extension of the war. a noble effort by bush
0 likes   

Guest

#22 Postby Guest » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:17 pm

southerngale wrote:I could have sworn we explained this to you before. There may not be any proven link between Saddam and 9/11 but since 9/11 we're in a WAR AGAINST TERROR! That includes the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. We captured him. This is great news and certainly not a mistake!! Why defend a murderer of millions? :roll:


Can somebody then explain me why the commission say "no credible link between OBL and Saddy"? No need to clarify that, isn't it? No connection is actually required, since: iraq=terror, war to terror=war to Iraq. It's so simple, so why the commission need to clarify that there's no connection????
0 likes   

User avatar
stormie_skies
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:25 pm
Location: League City, TX

#23 Postby stormie_skies » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:21 pm

I could have sworn we explained this to you before. There may not be any proven link between Saddam and 9/11 but since 9/11 we're in a WAR AGAINST TERROR! That includes the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. We captured him. This is great news and certainly not a mistake!! Why defend a murderer of millions?


There is a HUGE difference between "defending" Saddam and being convinced that the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was a strategic mistake.
A war against extremist political Islam, like any other war, requires a strategy. Islamic political terrorism is something that we will be dealing with for years, decades even, and it is absolutely of paramount importance that we be smart about fighting it, because wrong moves do nothing but extend the life of this dangerous movement.
Saddam was a nasty dictator who did awful things to the people under his control. That is a consensus ~ I have yet to see anyone say otherwise, regardless of if they supported the invasion of Iraq or not. No one cried when Saddam was captured, no one wishes for him to return to power.
Saying that those of us who think this war was a mistake "support" Saddam is inflammatory and flat-out false. We, like you, hope that this excursion turns out well, for the sake of our soldiers and of the Iraqi civilians who deserve better than what they had (and better than what they are getting now).
We just thought, in a post-9/11 world, there were bigger and better fish to fry than Saddam Hussein.
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#24 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:21 pm

correct me if I'm wrong paolao....but the commission has said there is no direct link between SH and 911.

There IS however, much evidence to support links between SH/Iraq and OBL.

You are confusing issues paoolloola
0 likes   

Guest

#25 Postby Guest » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:22 pm

DROliver wrote:Its sad to see how much you hate America.When Rome burns again you (if you survive) will no doubt blame America.Very very sad indeed.
Peace
Steve O.


I know you'd rather prefer me not to survive but just to be grilled.
Anyway let me ask you a simple think: whay you end yr posts with the word "peace"?
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#26 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:23 pm

geeeez...this is rediculous!
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#27 Postby GalvestonDuck » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:30 pm

PaolofromRome wrote:
southerngale wrote:I could have sworn we explained this to you before. There may not be any proven link between Saddam and 9/11 but since 9/11 we're in a WAR AGAINST TERROR! That includes the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. We captured him. This is great news and certainly not a mistake!! Why defend a murderer of millions? :roll:


Can somebody then explain me why the commission say "no credible link between OBL and Saddy"? No need to clarify that, isn't it? No connection is actually required, since: iraq=terror, war to terror=war to Iraq. It's so simple, so why the commission need to clarify that there's no connection????


Saddy???? You call him Saddy? WTH? A pet name for the jerk?

Besides, libs are the ones who first tried to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Most of us all agreed that there NEVER was a true direct link. It was a stupid question to start with. Like someone asking what the link was between Ted Kennedy and the Carrollton school bus crash (worst drunk driving crash in history). There was no direct link, but people died as a result of an idiot who chose to drink and drive.
0 likes   

User avatar
j
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:21 pm

#28 Postby j » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:34 pm

what a great analogy GD, and good for a laugh to boot
0 likes   

rainstorm

#29 Postby rainstorm » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:36 pm

PaolofromRome wrote:
southerngale wrote:I could have sworn we explained this to you before. There may not be any proven link between Saddam and 9/11 but since 9/11 we're in a WAR AGAINST TERROR! That includes the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. We captured him. This is great news and certainly not a mistake!! Why defend a murderer of millions? :roll:


Can somebody then explain me why the commission say "no credible link between OBL and Saddy"? No need to clarify that, isn't it? No connection is actually required, since: iraq=terror, war to terror=war to Iraq. It's so simple, so why the commission need to clarify that there's no connection????


read the whole paragragh that one sentence was taken from. even the man who worte that report has e-mailed news organizations saying they are using that 1 sentence out of context. it doesnt matter though. the kerry media is using that 1 sentence to destroy bush. i am baffled as to why bush refuses to attack the left media that is working with kerry to defeat him. only bush can get the truth out, and for whatever reason he wont. he cant do it with ads, he has to go out and attack the media personally. i was reading that the free media help kerry is getting is worth 2 billion dollars. no amount of campaign ads can fight that. for bush its simple. name the media as the enemy or lose. they are the ones who wont report on the great economy, and they are the ones who are out to get bush. john kerry means nothing.
Last edited by rainstorm on Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

rainstorm

#30 Postby rainstorm » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:37 pm

you have to understand the media will use anything to rip into bush and undermine our war effort. they have 1 goal. the destruction of the bush presidency
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#31 Postby GalvestonDuck » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:38 pm

j wrote:what a great analogy GD, and good for a laugh to boot


Thanks, J! :)

Doesn't it tick you off that people are trying to find something to argue about just for the sake of arguing about it?
0 likes   

User avatar
Skywatch_NC
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

#32 Postby Skywatch_NC » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:43 pm

GalvestonDuck wrote:
PaolofromRome wrote:
southerngale wrote:I could have sworn we explained this to you before. There may not be any proven link between Saddam and 9/11 but since 9/11 we're in a WAR AGAINST TERROR! That includes the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. We captured him. This is great news and certainly not a mistake!! Why defend a murderer of millions? :roll:


Can somebody then explain me why the commission say "no credible link between OBL and Saddy"? No need to clarify that, isn't it? No connection is actually required, since: iraq=terror, war to terror=war to Iraq. It's so simple, so why the commission need to clarify that there's no connection????


Saddy???? You call him Saddy? WTH? A pet name for the jerk?

Besides, libs are the ones who first tried to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Most of us all agreed that there NEVER was a true direct link. It was a stupid question to start with. Like someone asking what the link was between Ted Kennedy and the Carrollton school bus crash (worst drunk driving crash in history). There was no direct link, but people died as a result of an idiot who chose to drink and drive.


Speaking of that KY pick-up truck/church bus crash...I forget what kind of sentence that fella Mahoney received? Was it (hopefully) a life term?
0 likes   

Guest

#33 Postby Guest » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:46 pm

rainstorm wrote:you have to understand the media will use anything to rip into bush and undermine our war effort. they have 1 goal. the destruction of the bush presidency


The whole media? you mean no one is defending or at least accepting Bush's decisions? That sounds too strange to me.
0 likes   

User avatar
southerngale
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 27418
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 1:27 am
Location: Southeast Texas (Beaumont area)

#34 Postby southerngale » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:48 pm

stormie skies...I didn't say you or anyone else "supported" Saddam and I certainly wasn't inflammatory. My comment was "Why defend a murderer of millions?" as Paolo seems to be defending him.

And I think Saddam was a pretty big fish and definitely needed to go!
0 likes   
Please support Storm2k by making a donation today. It is greatly appreciated! Click here: Image

Image my Cowboys Image my RocketsImage my Astros

Guest

#35 Postby Guest » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:49 pm

stormie_skies wrote:
I could have sworn we explained this to you before. There may not be any proven link between Saddam and 9/11 but since 9/11 we're in a WAR AGAINST TERROR! That includes the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. We captured him. This is great news and certainly not a mistake!! Why defend a murderer of millions?


There is a HUGE difference between "defending" Saddam and being convinced that the decision to invade and occupy Iraq was a strategic mistake.
A war against extremist political Islam, like any other war, requires a strategy. Islamic political terrorism is something that we will be dealing with for years, decades even, and it is absolutely of paramount importance that we be smart about fighting it, because wrong moves do nothing but extend the life of this dangerous movement.
Saddam was a nasty dictator who did awful things to the people under his control. That is a consensus ~ I have yet to see anyone say otherwise, regardless of if they supported the invasion of Iraq or not. No one cried when Saddam was captured, no one wishes for him to return to power.
Saying that those of us who think this war was a mistake "support" Saddam is inflammatory and flat-out false. We, like you, hope that this excursion turns out well, for the sake of our soldiers and of the Iraqi civilians who deserve better than what they had (and better than what they are getting now).
We just thought, in a post-9/11 world, there were bigger and better fish to fry than Saddam Hussein.


Great Post.
0 likes   

User avatar
Skywatch_NC
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

#36 Postby Skywatch_NC » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:50 pm

About the only ones in the media who are supporting Bush are Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity! :D

Eric
0 likes   

User avatar
stormie_skies
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:25 pm
Location: League City, TX

#37 Postby stormie_skies » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:51 pm

you have to understand the media will use anything to rip into bush and undermine our war effort. they have 1 goal. the destruction of the bush presidency


The media is SUPPOSED to have an adversarial relationship with the presidency (or any other branch of the government). If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their job. They are no more bent on destroying Bush than they were on destroying Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or any other sitting president during their time in office. In fact, post-9/11 "patriotism" has resulted in Bush getting a free ride up until very recently.
0 likes   

rainstorm

#38 Postby rainstorm » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:51 pm

PaolofromRome wrote:
rainstorm wrote:you have to understand the media will use anything to rip into bush and undermine our war effort. they have 1 goal. the destruction of the bush presidency


The whole media? you mean no one is defending or at least accepting Bush's decisions? That sounds too strange to me.


the big 3 control the news along with the new york times. cable and talk radio are far behind. they want bush defeated, and they will succeed, which will result in a huge win for terrorism
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#39 Postby GalvestonDuck » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:53 pm

Skywatch_NC wrote:
Speaking of that KY pick-up truck/church bus crash...I forget what kind of sentence that fella Mahoney received? Was it (hopefully) a life term?


Nope, he was released in 1999. If I remember correctly, although he couldn't change what had happened, he was pretty darned remorseful, crying on the stand over the lives he had taken.
0 likes   

rainstorm

#40 Postby rainstorm » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:57 pm

stormie_skies wrote:
you have to understand the media will use anything to rip into bush and undermine our war effort. they have 1 goal. the destruction of the bush presidency


The media is SUPPOSED to have an adversarial relationship with the presidency (or any other branch of the government). If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their job. They are no more bent on destroying Bush than they were on destroying Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan or any other sitting president during their time in office. In fact, post-9/11 "patriotism" has resulted in Bush getting a free ride up until very recently.


they dont seem to have an adversarial relationship with osama bin laden
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests