# The Wussification of America Continues



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Iraq was a fight of Good Americans against Bad Terrorists, led by Chris Kyle, the Good-est American of them all.

*What American Sniper did is much, much worse.*​
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7859791/american-sniper-iraq


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Iraq was a fight of Good Americans against Bad Terrorists


Iraq was a fight by oil interests to get Iraqi oil out from under sanctions and onto the world market. The war was managed by people who didn't understand the region or how Iraqis interact. 150,000 innocent Iraqi civilians died in the conflict, and they hate us for it. There was never an Iraqi threat of any kind to America.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I can't say how much I admire people that are sooooooooo much smarter than past presidents and as an added bonus don't use petroleum. They also don't need the protection of the American military. 

They are the true American heroes, not guys like US Navy Seal Chris Kyle.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

What a twerp. Bet she's vegan and drives a Prius, too. It wasn't a propaganda film, it wasn't a documentary, it was a MOVIE. Based on a true story but Hollywood entertainment nonetheless. She totally pooped on the real Chris Kyle, too, and doesn't even seem to realize it or maybe she just doesn't care.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

It was based on his autobiography, so of course it isn't going to be from a completely unbiased perspective.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Iraq was a fight by oil interests to get Iraqi oil out from under sanctions and onto the world market. The war was managed by people who didn't understand the region or how Iraqis interact. 150,000 innocent Iraqi civilians died in the conflict, and they hate us for it. There was never an Iraqi threat of any kind to America.


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

I read the article. It was an interesting (albeit simplistic) extreme counterpoint to what was a movie that played to the opposite extreme that currently resonates with a lot of people.

Hollywood is Hollywood. It is all about making box office dollars. Lots of people just shelled out beaucoup bucks to watch a stupid comedy because it got a patriotic label attached. More people are now spending more money to watch a horror/hero film and get an emotional high. If you enjoy that, great. It just means that I get to sell more ticket stock.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

There were innocent Iraqis...
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFqyK8kB1Vk[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC9b3BPWTNI[/ame]
Interesting, I couldn't find a major U.S. news agency covering this, found British though, my question is what does God think of the Iraqi war?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

BlackFeather said:


> There is a chance we may all find out soon enough since they stand exact opposite of the Bible :thumb:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Iraq was a fight of Good Americans against Bad Terrorists, led by Chris Kyle, the Good-est American of them all.
> 
> *What American Sniper did is much, much worse.*​
> http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7859791/american-sniper-iraq


I thought the war in Iraq was about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his WMD's.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I thought the war in Iraq was about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his WMD's.


Right. That too.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Right. That too.


Not exactly "too". First and foremost. Without that there would have been no AlQaeda in Iraq and no Chris Kyle shooting them. I'm not sure how a criticism of a movie that glosses over that point and boils Iraq down to a simple black and white, good vs evil morality play wussifies us as a country. Maybe open and honest discussion of the causes and consequences of going to war are more than we should expect from Dirty Harry or any movie designed to entertain and make money.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Not exactly "too". First and foremost. Without that there would have been no AlQaeda in Iraq and no Chris Kyle shooting them. I'm not sure how a criticism of a movie that glosses over that point and boils Iraq down to a simple black and white, good vs evil morality play wussifies us as a country. Maybe open and honest discussion of the causes and consequences of going to war are more than we should expect from Dirty Harry or any movie designed to entertain and make money.


I liked Dirty Harry too, along with John Wayne, Audie Murphy, George Patton and many others, real and imagined.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I liked Dirty Harry too, along with John Wayne, Audie Murphy, George Patton and many others, real and imagined.


What's not to like about the hard bitten cop carrying the biggest baddest gun willing to trample the constitution to bring evil to justice? After all, it's just a movie. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dirty-harry-1971 

Of course real life is much more grey than black and white. You're either with us or against us, right? And we could never be wrong.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

A group of friends are meeting in the city El Paso to see the movie, a 200 mile trip for me. We got our tickets in advance which turns out a good thing, that showing has sold out. I very seldom go to a movie, wait till they come to Netflix. As it turns out most movies lately are really, really sad.

As to the article everyone has an opinion.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Concerning movies, I always thought that the most successful _dramas_, were indeed _dramatic_. Books are the same way.

A Solider that shoots people, because that is his job - not nearly as dramatic.

Throwing in controversy - that some might call propaganda, is a sure way to boost book and movies sales. 

It is a very successful movies, because it includes all the proper dramatic and yes, controversial elements. That's how Hollywood works.

People can no longer sort what is real any more.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I thought the war in Iraq was about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his WMD's.


Umm I thought there were not any weapons of mass destruction....... and If there had been how they would justify invading a sovereign country.

Must be one of those "smart President" things


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Not exactly "too". First and foremost. Without that there would have been no AlQaeda in Iraq and no Chris Kyle shooting them. I'm not sure how a criticism of a movie that glosses over that point and boils Iraq down to a simple black and white, good vs evil morality play wussifies us as a country. *Maybe open and honest discussion of the causes and consequences of going to war are more than we should expect from Dirty Harry or any movie designed to entertain and make money*.


Well duh. You said it yourself. "Designed to entertain and make money". Not to educate, not to follow a political agenda, not to promote "American guilt", none of that. 

As far as wussification, sitting safely at one's computer keyboard and using the right to free expression, that others fought and died for you to have, to drop poop on the life and times of a dead Navy seal to further a political agenda, that's about as wussified as it gets. If you don't find that cowardly, then where do you draw the line.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wussification... I define that as someone who stands by while evil is being committed in front of their eyes and then they do nothing. The WMD link was a lie, The meeting between top level Iraqi officials and Al Ciada was a lie, the yellow cake was a lie, the babies taken out of the incubators was a lie, and on and on... -> there was no justification to be in Iraq, how many people on this board supports "our" efforts in Iraq?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> how many people on this board supports "our" efforts in Iraq?


Most of them...

To be completely fair, I don't think most of them really believe it. It's political. Most people around here support the right and don't want to admit that a republican did anything wrong. They'll argue that Bush was sincere in his belief that Saddam had WMDs.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Iraq was a fight of Good Americans against Bad Terrorists,


Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Umm I thought there were not any weapons of mass destruction....... and If there had been how they would justify invading a sovereign country.
> 
> Must be one of those "smart President" things


 Yes it was a Smart President move. Better to fight over there than on our shores. It did good. And brought this country into what the rest of the world already knew for years. There are many that hate the US for the freedoms we enjoy. Many already knew that it was about time American and Americans were brought up to speed on such things. 9/11 was a good wake up call and changed not only the USA for ever, but the rest of the world as well. The world is a dangerous place with all sorts of evil people in it. Many found that out on 9/11 many still have to find it out unfortunately .


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Yes it was a Smart President move. Better to fight over there than on our shores. It did good. And brought this country into what the rest of the world already knew for years. There are many that hate the US for the freedoms we enjoy. Many already knew that it was about time American and Americans were brought up to speed on such things. 9/11 was a good wake up call and changed not only the USA for ever, but the rest of the world as well. The world is a dangerous place with all sorts of evil people in it. Many found that out on 9/11 many still have to find it out unfortunately .


Well they better get cracking if it is better to fight them over there than here because they are way madder now than they were then and are more capable :hobbyhors Little Bush wanted his Dad's old enemy taught a lesson and did it .Also we needed oil and the bankers needed a war all timed just right :icecream:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Well they better get cracking if it is better to fight them over there than here because they are way madder now than they were then and are more capable :hobbyhors Little Bush wanted his Dad's old enemy taught a lesson and did it .Also we needed oil and the bankers needed a war all timed just right :icecream:


 'Mission Accomplished'. :happy2:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Well they better get cracking if it is better to fight them over there than here


What makes you think they can't fight us here if they're fighting over there? 

You see, our enemy isn't personnel or organizational intensive. Once their fighters understand the objective they don't need supervision or even funding, since terrorists often fund their own missions.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> There are many that hate the US for the freedoms we enjoy.


Yep, that is why the patriot act was passed to deprive us of our freedoms, that is why the NDAA was passed so that Americans can be jailed without a trial, that is why our rights are being eroded by our leaders continually, that is why they spy on us. Are you sure these foreigners hate our freedoms or is it our own government that hates our freedoms? The foreigners could careless about our freedoms, they hate us for our foreign policy.

While I'm at it, The excuse we used is that Iraq had WMDs (weapons of mass destruction, whether they did or didn't is not the purpose of this argument), yet our government has WMDs does that mean that some other country can invade us to get rid of our WMDs? The Bible says we should use a just weight, a just measure. It seems hypocritical of us to say we can have them but you can't.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What makes you think they can't fight us here if they're fighting over there?
> 
> You see, our enemy isn't personnel or organizational intensive. Once their fighters understand the objective they don't need supervision or even funding, since terrorists often fund their own missions.


Well seems Israel is totally surrounded by all sorts of evil folks but I hear they profile folks .Turn the red neck USA those born and bred here loose it would be easier to find a unicorn to ride than a Arab :hobbyhors

Or find the bad guys country of origin and nuke it past the stone age and the rest will straighten up a little while :run:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Knight, et al, do you sincerely think that this is a just statement: "There are many that hate the US for the freedoms we enjoy." It is so far off the deep end to think this, it has no ending, It's like saying about someone else "He hates me because I am smarter than him" Do you not see the presumption filled negative argument here?

They hate us because WE mess in their sovereign affairs, WE change the natural course of their destiny. WE decide what is right for them. Now, if another country did to us what we are doing to many of the countries across the world, do you not think that we, as a people, would strike out at them?

War in many cases is not necessary for justice, it is, however, much more lucrative for those in the defense industry, and the banking arena, and those who wish to lord themselves over us, the unwashed masses...

Justify one, just one death of an innocent child in Iraq. Now expand that to the entire world. Does it fall to us to stop this sort of thing that others do by doing the exact same thing ourselves? Do you not see how this is an absolute "No-Win" situation all the way around in the search for justice?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Something else, you see - we started this country by being terrorists against King George. We changed what was then "civilized fighting" - we fought dirty according to the British, we taught the world a different way to fight. We taught the world that another entity should not have absolute control of a people that sought their own destiny. We destroyed, almost completely, an indigenous race of people in our righteousness... How on earth can you speak with authority about who should be destroyed? Should it not be the goal of all humankind to root out the behavior of destruction without personal agendas? Why do people cling to their own petty personal agendas?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Well seems Israel is totally surrounded by all sorts of evil folks but I hear they profile folks .Turn the red neck USA those born and bred here loose it would be easier to find a unicorn to ride than a Arab :hobbyhors
> 
> Or find the bad guys country of origin and nuke it past the stone age and the rest will straighten up a little while :run:


 What messed up the war is this Liberal thinking when it comes to ROE.
War is War and kill or be killed but this can't shoot until you ASK PERMISSION? That is just and only stupid liberal ideas but it is dumb besides.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And what I just posted is what is happening the "Wussification of America" through liberal agendas, and liberal ideals., and is what the OP posted about.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Just for fun I found this video, it is why we attacked Iraq.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/ame]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Knight, in response to your reply, I would ask, - War? You said "what messed up this War" ->? It was authorized under an Authorization to use Military Force to root out those that did 9/11. It was not a war. I also highlight the post above that identified the supposed reasons to include Iraq - which of those fall with in the AUMF if they were proven to be lies?

My understanding of the "Wussification" of the world was identified for your illustration...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Something else, you see - we started this country by being terrorists against King George. We changed what was then "civilized fighting" - we fought dirty according to the British, we taught the world a different way to fight. We taught the world that another entity should not have absolute control of a people that sought their own destiny. We destroyed, almost completely, an indigenous race of people in our righteousness... How on earth can you speak with authority about who should be destroyed? Should it not be the goal of all humankind to root out the behavior of destruction without personal agendas? Why do people cling to their own petty personal agendas?


I beg to differ, it was King George that was the terrorist.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Symantecs... what was George's perception of the early Americans? George was the "then" current authority, just as our Government is now... Your observation is quite telling...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Symantecs... what was George's perception of the early Americans? George was the "then" current authority, just as our Government is now... Your observation is quite telling...


In what way? What were the Americans perception of King George? What did we do about it?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The Americans had a perception of George that there was no possibility for him to rule over them. The early Americans said "No". If one were to paraphrase this scenario onto other scenarios with regards to this government then the over-reach of George is an obvious dilemma when trying to say that we are proper in our efforts to "rule" other nations. We, ourselves repudiated the righteousness of the rule of George by the actions of the early Americans. Are you having difficulty correlating this connection?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> The Americans had a perception of George that there was no possibility for him to rule over them. The early Americans said "No". If one were to paraphrase this scenario onto other scenarios with regards to this government then the over-reach of George is an obvious dilemma when trying to say that we are proper in our efforts to "rule" other nations. We, ourselves repudiated the righteousness of the rule of George by the actions of the early Americans. Are you having difficulty correlating this connection?


Not in the least! The use of commas would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> Well duh. You said it yourself. "Designed to entertain and make money". Not to educate, not to follow a political agenda, not to promote "American guilt", none of that.
> 
> As far as wussification, sitting safely at one's computer keyboard and using the right to free expression, that others fought and died for you to have, to drop poop on the life and times of a dead Navy seal to further a political agenda, that's about as wussified as it gets. If you don't find that cowardly, then where do you draw the line.


It's a movie made by a director with his own political agenda which he has made apparent in the past, and with this movie. Mr Eastwood will make quite a bit of money expressing his worldview through this movie. I'm not sure why he would be above criticism.

I have no animosity towards Chris Kyle. He did what soldiers have always done. He protected himself and his fellow soldiers in the best way he knew in an untenable situation that politicians sitting safely back in Washington put him in. I do have a problem with his near deification by some, the holes and seeming mistruths in his own story that led to this, and the further exaggerations and embellishments of this movie that perpetuate it. True heroes fought, died, were wounded and are walking today among us. I honor them in little ways everyday and thank them, and those of past generations, for doing what they did to allow me to sit here and type away.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.


Only that they were a training ground for terrorists.
Iraq had broken 'bout every UN rule, IIRC, and IIRC Iraqs were thrilled w/saddam's capture. IIRC, THEY tried & convicted him.
Bunches of WMDs were found just recently w/evidence that many more had been there, + saddam had gassed the kurds. But, the left would rather make fun of patriots, of solkiers doing far more than they would ever have the guts to even contemplate.

Let me ask our lib friends: do y'all like Michael Moore? Think h'es a patriot who loves our country? 
How about Eastwood? Movies good? Patriot?

Moore & his ilk & D lies are one of many reasons I cannot be a "D" anymore .


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Something else, you see - we started this country by being terrorists against King George. We changed what was then "civilized fighting" - we fought dirty according to the British, we taught the world a different way to fight. We taught the world that another entity should not have absolute control of a people that sought their own destiny. We destroyed, almost completely, an indigenous race of people in our righteousness... How on earth can you speak with authority about who should be destroyed? Should it not be the goal of all humankind to root out the behavior of destruction without personal agendas? Why do people cling to their own petty personal agendas?


You sound as if you think our country is really bad. Do you think we shoulda just let Sept 11th go? Not done anything? Even tho there were many attacks b/4? Beruit/Cole/Towers/etc. Been fighting Islamists since Jefferson's term: Tripoli. 
Actually, we are hated b/c we are allies w/Israel. But if this Idiotincharge has his way we son't be for much longer. He'll let Iran have their nukes & Israel will be gone. GONE. And then Iran will start on us.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Symantecs... what was George's perception of the early Americans? George was the "then" current authority, just as our Government is now... Your observation is quite telling...


What school did you attend? What history did you read?
George was insane. WELL documented. And a tyrant, if not terrorizing colonists.
I cannot believe an American would side w/that king...
Where are you from?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Well, unfortunately, most people care little about actually researching history in an objective way. Instead national and patriotic feelings bias what the reader sees and hears.

Why not read an actual biography of King George III and then decide whether a poster is correct?
In this particular case, I'd bet the farm the majority will come away with their mouths open, if not their minds.
As far as "siding with the King"..........that's a REAL touchy subject to discuss honestly.
George Washington had to deal with that himself......with his own mother.eep:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> It's a movie made by a director with his own political agenda which he has made apparent in the past, and with this movie. Mr Eastwood will make quite a bit of money expressing his worldview through this movie. I'm not sure why he would be above criticism.
> 
> I have no animosity towards Chris Kyle. He did what soldiers have always done. He protected himself and his fellow soldiers in the best way he knew in an untenable situation that politicians sitting safely back in Washington put him in. I do have a problem with his near deification by some, the holes and seeming mistruths in his own story that led to this, and the further exaggerations and embellishments of this movie that perpetuate it. True heroes fought, died, were wounded and are walking today among us. I honor them in little ways everyday and thank them, and those of past generations, for doing what they did to allow me to sit here and type away.


You honored Kyle in your special little way right there with the "holes" and "mistruths" part. 

I hadn't planned to go see this movie in the theatre but since the "American guilt" crowd is so against it I guess I'll put another buck in Eastwood's empire and buy a ticket.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Having read the book I hope the movie is a good representation. 

As to the paths nations are born most are painful, bloody and someone loses.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Link please: "Bunches of WMDs were found just recently w/evidence that many more had been there"

Who provided Saddam with the "gas" that he used on the Kurds, on the Iranians?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Link please: "Bunches of WMDs were found just recently w/evidence that many more had been there"
> 
> Who provided Saddam with the "gas" that he used on the Kurds, on the Iranians?


Saddams brother oversaw the manufacturer of chemical agents. That's why his nickname was "chemical Ali". And he really didn't use it on the Kurds, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the time. There's evidence out there. Even the head of the UN inspection team said so at the time.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> You honored Kyle in your special little way right there with the "holes" and "mistruths" part.
> 
> I hadn't planned to go see this movie in the theatre but since the "American guilt" crowd is so against it I guess I'll put another buck in Eastwood's empire and buy a ticket.


I honor Chris Kyle's service and sacrifice every time I pass the shadow box on the wall which contains my father's service medals and say a quiet thanks to him and his comrades, many of whom I came to know as "uncles". I honor all their service when I ask whatever higher powers there may be to assure that the next generations only have to go and fight for true and just cause. I have difficulty bowing down and worshipping at the alter of a man who claims, without any verification, to have shot two car jackers, who bragged about shooting American citizens from atop the Superdome after Katrina, and who lied about punching an old man. Kris Kyle was undoubtedly many things but I have trouble seeing him as a hero.

I hope your money is well spent and you enjoy Mr Eastwood's work of fiction.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Only that they were a training ground for terrorists.
> Iraq had broken 'bout every UN rule, IIRC, and IIRC Iraqs were thrilled w/saddam's capture. IIRC, THEY tried & convicted him.
> Bunches of WMDs were found just recently w/evidence that many more had been there, + saddam had gassed the kurds. But, the left would rather make fun of patriots, of solkiers doing far more than they would ever have the guts to even contemplate.
> 
> ...


Iraq did become a training ground for terrorists after we invaded and destroyed all governmental and most social structure.

It only took a few years, 1000's of American lives (not to mention tens of thousands Iraqi lives) and a few billion dollars to find those WMDs that we were told were an imminent threat. Not to mention that what we found were largely old, obsolete and unsuitable to be used as weapons.

Saddam's gassing of the Kurds had happened many years prior to our invasion and remember, we were once his biggest supporters.

I can only answer for myself regarding Mr Moore. My wife and I were acquainted with some of the people he trashed in his movie about the auto industry. We are no fans of his but at least he is honest and forthright about the goals of his movies.

Patriotism is much more than flag waving and hero worship.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Two posts here stating that WMD were found, to my knowledge it was proven that much of the Chemical Stocks that Saddam had were either destroyed or slated to be destroyed, the only chemical munitions that were found were shells that at one point contained mustard gas. So where is your proof of what you say? I am in doubt of your veracity.. OK Jeff, you state something that is true, Saddam did gas people, however, you forgot to answer the question that was posted - Where did he get the precursors to produce the gasses that he used against the Kurds and the Iranians?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Link please: "Bunches of WMDs were found just recently w/evidence that many more had been there"
> 
> Who provided Saddam with the "gas" that he used on the Kurds, on the Iranians?


You are prolly new but we just went over this in a LARGE thread...maybe just a few mo ago? Along w/fact that saddam gassed his own people & the kruds. Its common knowledge.

I'm not a google grama.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Two posts here stating that WMD were found, to my knowledge it was proven that much of the Chemical Stocks that Saddam had were either destroyed or slated to be destroyed, the only chemical munitions that were found were shells that at one point contained mustard gas. So where is your proof of what you say? I am in doubt of your veracity.. OK Jeff, you state something that is true, Saddam did gas people, however, you forgot to answer the question that was posted - Where did he get the precursors to produce the gasses that he used against the Kurds and the Iranians?


Here ya go. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Old, outdated, obsolete, leftovers from programs we helped with. Not quite the imminent danger we were led to believe but good enough for some.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Shine said:


> Two posts here stating that WMD were found, to my knowledge it was proven that much of the Chemical Stocks that Saddam had were either destroyed or slated to be destroyed, the only chemical munitions that were found were shells that at one point contained mustard gas. So where is your proof of what you say? I am in doubt of your veracity.. OK Jeff, you state something that is true, Saddam did gas people, however, you forgot to answer the question that was posted - Where did he get the precursors to produce the gasses that he used against the Kurds and the Iranians?


Saddams brother.. Chemical Ali...got the components to make different forms of chemical weapons from.....around the world. If you think that they got everything from us... you would be sadly mistaken.

And to be fair....Saddam did not direct the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. They just happened to be there. They were not his target....He considered them as expendable, nothing more. Interesting that you admit they had chemical weapons, but ask for proof that they did? Really? ?:shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> saddam gassed his own people & the kruds.


Saddam gassed Shiites and Kurds, but those aren't Saddam's own people. If you think they are then you have a lot to learn about the middle east.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> You are prolly new but we just went over this in a LARGE thread...maybe just a few mo ago? Along w/fact that saddam gassed his own people & the kruds. Its common knowledge.
> 
> I'm not a google grama.


Yes and there was even a Cover up to keep it out of the news that many troops had chemical burns they found so much.~!
The issue of Iraqâs WMD remnant was suddenly thrust back into the fore this week, with a blockbuster New York Times report accusing the Bush administration of *covering up American troopsâ chemically-induced wounds.*

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/report-kar...out-wmds-found-in-iraq-in-2004/#ixzz3PnGGGeXp

In one way THIS should have gotten out to Keep the Left from dumping all over the GOP. And on the other hand oh my a cover up. LOL


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> I thought the war in Iraq was about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his WMD's.


 And who built up Saddam Hussein? He served his purpose when we was using him against Iran 

big rockpile


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

In the same thread I also alluded to their destruction in compliance with the dictates of the UN. So, he was destroying his chemical weapons, all that's been found were old Mustard shells - not the chemical, just shells that once contained them. 

Wow - Proof from the "RightScoop" who is quoting something from the "Daily Beast", it's gotta be true! Anything more mainstream than that? Sounds like the "Proof" that Russian Spetsnaz(sp) smuggled them over to Syria that was never used, you've really got to be pulling our leg, a politician with proof that decides not to use the proof that would exonerate them for THE BIGGEST MISTAKE of all history?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shine said:


> Wow - Proof from the "RightScoop" who is quoting something from the "Daily Beast", it's gotta be true! Anything more mainstream than that?


The article was about what was IN a *New York Times report* Gee, all that dissing, and now you may want to look up the NYT to see if what was posted was true. Well IT WAS.
ALL most all of the not so main stream reports ARE reporting form OTHER reports.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> The article was about what was IN a *New York Times report* Gee, all that dissing, and now you may want to look up the NYT to see if what was posted was true. Well IT WAS.
> ALL most all of the not so main stream reports ARE reporting form OTHER reports.


The NYT article described soldiers suffering the consequence of handling old, degraded munitions from programs that were deactivated years earlier and posed no credible threat of being actually used to attack anyone. Once again, where was the imminent threat to our country from these munitions that was the pretext for our invasion?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

You pick your heroes, and I'll pick mine.

































Sadly, some have no heroes....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Saddam gassed Shiites and Kurds, but those aren't Saddam's own people. If you think they are then you have a lot to learn about the middle east.


Where did they live? Iraq? How about the thousands of women & children raped under his regime? I guess if you're not a certain kind of muslim, you're not a human being, just an infidel to be exterminated. 
Do you view Hitler's plan like you do Saddam's?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

That imbecile is just one of the many reasons I'm no longer a "D".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Where did they live? Iraq? How about the thousands of women & children raped under his regime? I guess if you're not a certain kind of muslim, you're not a human being, just an infidel to be exterminated.
> Do you view Hitler's plan like you do Saddam's?


We get it. Saddam was a bad, bad man. Of course he wasn't much better when we supported him because he didn't like Iran and neither did we. For years when those on the left pointed to problems around the world and called for US action the counter cry from the right was that we couldn't be the world's policeman. The world is an overall better place without Saddam in it .Whether Iraq and Iraqis are better off because of our actions isn't all that debatable. Other people are now suffering the same privations and worse than what some did under Saddam. But none of that answers the question of where that imminent threat that Saddam and his WMDs that was the reason given and sold to the American people for the invasion evaporated to. Care to address that simple question?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Actually it was the many un sanctions/rules/laws that were broken, air space violations, on & on. As well as evidence that terrorists HAD trained there. Tooo many thigns, not just WMDs. Even tho the "DS" were convinced there were & for that reason they wanted to go in. Many many of 'em. 
Sad the left can't take responsibility. Or think they were duped. If they're so smart how did they continually get duped by a dopey POTUS?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Some people just don't get it, and yes - the Iraq thing was discussed in another thread. I guess it does not matter how much proof one has if another is unwilling to look at it in a realistic fashion...

That's the real "wussification" in Today's world...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Actually it was the many un sanctions/rules/laws that were broken, air space violations, on & on. As well as evidence that terrorists HAD trained there. Tooo many thigns, not just WMDs. Even tho the "DS" were convinced there were & for that reason they wanted to go in. Many many of 'em.
> Sad the left can't take responsibility. Or think they were duped. If they're so smart how did they continually get duped by a dopey POTUS?


The same way the right got duped. The difference is that that those on the left and many of us in the middle realize the error of our ways. I voted for W in 2004 in part because I thought he deserved a chance to finish what he started. I didn't vote for MCCain in part because I thought he would never finish.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I voted for W in '00 because of the stench left in my mind by the Clintons. I could not believe what W then turned around and did to our freedoms.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shine said:


> Some people just don't get it, and yes - the Iraq thing was discussed in another thread. I guess it does not matter how much proof one has if another is unwilling to look at it in a realistic fashion...
> 
> That's the real "wussification" in Today's world...


You bet and I voted for W twice and I sure would vote for anyone just like him again. What we really need is a person like a Reagan reincarnated. Now THAT is what this country REALLY needs, especially at this point in time in this country.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I agree.
Just one more idiot in the white house is about all it should take to send us over the edge.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> We get it. Saddam was a bad, bad man. Of course he wasn't much better when we supported him because he didn't like Iran and neither did we. For years when those on the left pointed to problems around the world and called for US action the counter cry from the right was that we couldn't be the world's policeman. The world is an overall better place without Saddam in it .Whether Iraq and Iraqis are better off because of our actions isn't all that debatable. Other people are now suffering the same privations and worse than what some did under Saddam. But none of that answers the question of where that imminent threat that Saddam and his WMDs that was the reason given and sold to the American people for the invasion evaporated to. Care to address that simple question?


I'll start with...Saddam told everyone that would listen, that he had wmd's. Why would anyone in there right mind not believe him after what he had been doing to his fellow muslims?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Actually it was the many un sanctions/rules/laws that were broken, air space violations, on & on. As well as evidence that terrorists HAD trained there. Tooo many thigns, not just WMDs. Even tho the "DS" were convinced there were & for that reason they wanted to go in. Many many of 'em.
> Sad the left can't take responsibility. Or think they were duped. If they're so smart how did they continually get duped by a dopey POTUS?


 Oh man someone is getting ready to repost their conscience-soothing blame shifting list of the Ds calling for Saddams removal! Even though most of your quotes were from BEFORE the UN was allowed unfettered access to suspected WMD sites and still found NOTHING. Remind us all again who kicked out the inspectors in 2003? Heres a hint, it wasn't Saddam. Last name rhymes with 'Tush'.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> the Ds calling for Saddams removal!


I'm having a hard time picturing a gang of war-mongering democrats, led by Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi, badgering GWB & Dick Cheney into starting a war they didn't want. Conservatives can't be serious.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

That's right - the key words in the above post are: Kicked Out and Unfettered Access. What was so difficult for Saddam to answer? A negative question - he had to prove he didn't have WMD - our politicians could just say - "Oh, he's got them hidden somewhere" - there was no way to absolutely prove his answer to that question. So we destroyed Iraq and shoved it directly into a hornet's nest - but... we're the good guys...


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Where did they live? Iraq? How about the thousands of women & children raped under his regime? I guess if you're not a certain kind of muslim, you're not a human being, just an infidel to be exterminated.
> Do you view Hitler's plan like you do Saddam's?



I get confused here. You seem to be saying we should protect the muslims. Were you against what Fordy said in the other thread about punishing Islam? I mean, if we're supposed to go over there to kill them, why didn't we just let Saddam do it for us, or let them kill each other?



> In most democratic countries we make fun of politicans , government flunkies , governors , mayors , priests , cops , CIA , The US Congress and we don't expect the Baptists , Lutherns , or Catholics to assassinate the cartoonist and the newspaper editor who published the material ! It seems the Jihadists only respect one form of Diplomacy and that is delivered from the barrel of a gun ! The Jihadists , Ultimately , Have NO Loyalty to anyone.......they switch sides like a weather vane twisting in the wind . The only way to deter a Jihadist is to either shoot him or blow him\them UP !
> ..................Given the above , trying to Play nice with these people just doesn't work , which means we need to impress upon them that *for every Infidel they kill , we will establish a ratio of 100 or maybe 1,000 to one* . If one evaluates the Jewish methods employed against Hamas and Fatah we might employ some of the same tactics to those who would destroy our country . Is this a Redux of the Holy wars of the past , probably ! *There just doesn't seem to be any other WAY to deal with these 'Friendly' Islamists than shedding their blood* . , fordy


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Amazing how many reasons we can come up with to go halfway around the world and mess with people. I guess if you come up with enough excuses, maybe some of them will turn out right.


Let's see, he had WMDs, and the there were terrorists there, and they were breaking the UN rules, and we need to establish democracy, and they hate us for our freedoms, and he was a threat to the region, and he gassed the Kurds, and he hurt his people, and we have to preserve our freedoms, and we have to ensure the free flow of oil, and on and on.....


Most of these issues would justify a foreign country bombing us and getting rid of Obama. Surely we all want that! Golden rule and all.

Conservatives claim to want less government, but will forever want more spending on war. Makes them government lovers just like liberals. 

Usually 'conservatives' are against the UN until they need them to justify another war.

As for oil, it was once said we had to stabilize the region so oil would flow freely. Well as we now see with price dropping because Saudi Arabia finally decided to keep producing, we've been robbed. We were defending a monopoly.

Anyway, as long as we can keep printing money, there will be more war. Just have to keep coming up with excuses for them, which the liberal media and their followers will accept without question. I recall Dan Rather saying some years ago that he and others should have been more critical of the government's claims justifying the war. Turns out though, he's a liberal and most of the warmongers are too. They both believe all problems can be solved through government action.

And if the war didn't go well, liberals will always say we need to spend more money and send more troops. Just as liberals say all problems with healthcare and education are due to lack of spending.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DJ in WA said:


> Most of these issues would justify a foreign country bombing us and getting rid of Obama. Surely we all want that! Golden rule and all.



:happy2::happy2::happy2:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Remind us all again who kicked out the inspectors in 2003? Heres a hint, it wasn't Saddam. Last name rhymes with 'Tush'.


Wait, what?

Which inspectors did Bush kick out of Iraq in 2003?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The whole UN team including the Representatives from IAEA - what? you didn't know? It wouldn't look good for the war effort if he was complying with the mandates would it? Oh yeah, it wasn't a war anyways, right?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Shine said:


> The whole UN team including the Representatives from IAEA - what? you didn't know? It wouldn't look good for the war effort if he was complying with the mandates would it? Oh yeah, it wasn't a war anyways, right?


I guess I didn't realize that _Bush_ had authority over UN or IAEA inspectors, that _he_ could kick them out of Iraq.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> I guess I didn't realize that _Bush_ had authority over UN or IAEA inspectors, that _he_ could kick them out of Iraq.


Kicked out- advised to leave because the inspections only stood in the way of invasion. Kind of a tomato- tomato arguement isn't it?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...spectors-told-to-leave-iraq.html#.VMWaFNm9Kc0


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Revisionism, relativism and passivism abounds


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Add this too:

On March 7, 2003 Hans Blix reported accelerated cooperation throughout the month of February but it was still not "immediate" and "unconditional" as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He informed the UN security council that "it will not take years, nor weeks, but months" to verify whether Iraq had complied with its disarmament obligations.
U.S. President George W. Bushhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blairhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair met in the Azoreshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores islands for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15&#8211;16, 2003, after which Bush declared that, despite Blix's report, "diplomacy had failed" to compel Iraq to comply with UN Resolution inspection requirements, and stated his intention to use military force to attack Iraq in what was, according to the Bush administration, compliance with the threat of "serious consequences" in UN 1441.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

HD Rider, if I am reading you right I would ask you this, what if you were a young adult living apart from your parents and found out that your father was telling what you knew to be lies about the neighbor and then kicked the living crap out of him and put him in the hospital continuing to tell those same lies, what would you say to your father?

If I have misunderstood, I apologize.

P.S. - this is hypothetical - nothing about your family in any specific way...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Shine said:


> HD Rider, if I am reading you right I would ask you this, what if you were a young adult living apart from your parents and found out that your father was telling what you knew to be lies about the neighbor and then kicked the living crap out of him and put him in the hospital continuing to tell those same lies, what would you say to your father?
> 
> If I have misunderstood, I apologize.
> 
> P.S. - this is hypothetical - nothing about your family in any specific way...


Shine, no offense to you, but it was and is not that simple.

AT THE TIME, the ball had started rolling. Most were pushing the ball, from many countries to go to war with Iraq. I was visiting western European countries at the time. Many of the common everyday people saw our mistake. And that is what it was. It was a mistake.

To say we went for oil, sure we did. Our economy requires a lot of oil. Iraq's production is at its highest now, and gas is very low.

That said, at the time, the pervasive belief was that SH had WMD. Maybe some knew better, but the war machine was in motion, led by Bush, and sanctioned by Congress, along with other friendly powers. Some still believe he had WMDs, maybe they were moved. SH was an evil man, and is a man no more.

It wasn't evil manifested by Cheney and his puppet Bush. It was simply a mistake.

People like to create enemies.

Hindsight is not how we go forward. At that time, they only had what they believed to work with and base their decisions on, not not what we know now.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm having a hard time picturing a gang of war-mongering democrats, led by Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi, badgering GWB & Dick Cheney into starting a war they didn't want. Conservatives can't be serious.


How soon they conveniently forget.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Oh man someone is getting ready to repost their conscience-soothing blame shifting list of the Ds calling for Saddams removal! Even though most of your quotes were from BEFORE the UN was allowed unfettered access to suspected WMD sites and still found NOTHING. Remind us all again who kicked out the inspectors in 2003? Heres a hint, it wasn't Saddam. Last name rhymes with 'Tush'.


Yup, a lot of the quotes were even b/4 Bush took office, long time those Ds called for something to be done about Iraq. 
Shoot, I believed all those Ds. There were documentaries on tv about "Dr. Death" a lady who 'cooked' up deadly chemicals-chem warfare.

Of course, even tho there's documentation on each quote, some will try to say their taken out of context. Whole speeches can be looked up. Out of context my foot. 
Quotes from Kerry, both Clintons, LIEden but who listens to him, etc.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DJ in WA said:


> I get confused here. You seem to be saying we should protect the muslims. Were you against what Fordy said in the other thread about punishing Islam? I mean, if we're supposed to go over there to kill them, why didn't we just let Saddam do it for us, or let them kill each other?


Do you not see the difference b/w armies & citizens of a country?
Like, do you think the people of Germany should've been killed? When we speak of 'punishing' muslims (not sure why that word was used but guess its as good as any) pretty sure we're speaking of those in power, those who are committed to jihad, those in 'cells' waiting to be called to 'battle',


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, a lot of the quotes were even b/4 Bush took ovvice, long time those Ds called for something to be done about Iraq.
> Shoot, I believed all those Ds. There were documentaries on tv about "Dr. Death" a lady who 'cooked' up deadly chemicals-chem warfare.
> 
> Of course, even tho there's documentation on each quote, some will try to say their taken out of context. Whole speeches can be looked up. Out of context my foot.
> Quotes from Kerry, both Clintons, LIEden but who listens to him, etc.


And what does any of that have to do with how badly the administration that shall not be blamed rushed to and messed up the removal of Saddam and it's aftermath. The UN and it's inspectors were only asking for a few more months to conclude their investigation. Of course it's likely that that conclusion would have debunked the "imminent threat" of Iraqi WMDs and we would no longer have had a reason to invade. How different the world, and the lives of all the Chris Kyles who served, might have been had just a bit more patience been shown.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Shine said:


> Add this too:
> 
> On March 7, 2003 Hans Blix reported accelerated cooperation throughout the month of February but it was still not "immediate" and "unconditional" as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He informed the UN security council that "it will not take years, nor weeks, but months" to verify whether Iraq had complied with its disarmament obligations.
> U.S. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair met in the Azores islands for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15â16, 2003, after which Bush declared that, despite Blix's report, "diplomacy had failed" to compel Iraq to comply with UN Resolution inspection requirements, and stated his intention to use military force to attack Iraq in what was, according to the Bush administration, compliance with the threat of "serious consequences" in UN 1441.


But consider what went on in the years prior - all the way back to 1991, how Hussein played cat-and-mouse with UN inspectors (remember them holding inspectors hostage??). And this went on all the way up until Bush decided to act. Really, at the time, I thought it was rather absurd that _anyone_ would believe Hussein was going to comply this time.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

I am humored, "it was the democrats fault, no it was the republicans, it was the conservatives, no it was the liberals fault." When are people going to realize that it is the big banks, big business, and the military industrial complex who buy our politicians in any party. These people control our government, and these people make money off of war. Why do you think we have one war after another, now it is Ukraine, soon to be Syria, The people don't want war, but the business that make money off of war do. You think you elect your president? You are only given a choice of people who are already in the pocket of these businessmen, and someone not in their pocket is not covered in the media, lied about, and if necessary bullied into quiting (remember Ross Perot they threatened to discredit his family if he didn't drop out.) Republicrates and Demicans are two sides of the same coin, to give you the illusion of choice when there is none.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

BF
I am afraid we are stuck with what we have until we find something better.


----------

