# Questions for Dick Cheney



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

This is a bit hard to watch, especially his use of the word "everyone". Well I was against it before we invaded, and questioned the intelligence, and assumed it would turn out badly. So we need to start asking Cheney some real questions, as I've listed below.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6dWbbaylo&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

Mr. VP, do you believe in the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies and be peacemakers and live by the Golden Rule? 

Mr. VP, if Barack Obama is destroying America, would you welcome forces from the middle east coming here to overthrow Obama, destroy our infrastructure, and establish a democracy, returning the favor we gave them?

Mr. VP, why are we in the Middle East? If not for oil, is it goat cheese?

Mr. VP, if we are justified in fighting over their oil, would they be justified in fighting over our corn?

Mr. VP, do you think we were morally justified in installing a dictator in Iran in 1953? Is it right to support other dictators while claiming to spread democracy?

Mr. VP, was it right for us to ship WMD material to Iraq to use against Iran? Why would we need to get rid of Saddam for having WMDs that we gave to him?

Mr. VP, if a foreign country was dropping bombs, or imposing sanctions that resulted in the death of your child, would you retaliate?

Mr. VP, when do you think we should stop killing children in Iraq?

Mr. VP, when do you think parents in Iraq will stop becoming angry for the deaths of their children?

Mr. VP, after we killed their children, do you think Iraqi parents hate us because we are rich and free?

Mr. VP, why is Brazil not a target for terrorists, as they are also rich and free. Why is Brazil not fighting a war on terrorism?

Mr. VP, when do you think the war on terrorism will end? Should we try to stop killing children and leave their countries and see if terrorism would end?

Mr. VP, do you regularly visit the maimed, debilitated and mentally deranged Iraq veterans and their families? How are the children of those veterans doing? How many veterans are committing suicide and how are their families doing?

Mr. VP, after lifetime care of the maimed, debilitated, and mentally deranged soldiers, how much will the Iraq war cost? How much is that per household in the U.S?

Mr. VP, how will we pay for the war in Iraq? How much will you pay for the war in Iraq?

Mr. VP, do you think the American people should pay directly for the war, as in write a monthly check? Do you think the people should sacrifice and ration food and supplies as we did in WW2?

Mr. VP, have you read the speech, War is a Racket, by General Smedley Butler? What did you think of it?

Mr. VP, have contractors made any money in Iraq? Has there ever been a case in which making money influenced the policy decisions of a leader?

Mr. VP, if you can hunt or drive, you can go to Iraq and drive in a convoy, or shoot bad guys. Are you willing to do that for a cause you truly believe in?

Mr. VP, wouldn't it be better for old guys to die or be maimed, than for young guys with children?

Mr. VP, since our country's survival is at stake, would you support mandatory combat duty for all men over 50 who can drive or shoot?

Mr. VP, what do you think of the following quote? Have you ever used fear in promoting your policies?

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I don't even think that Cheney is a member here.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

I've got a few more questions that need answering from Obama, Hillary, Reid and Pelosi . . .


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

To sit where you sit and judge a man that had the responsibilities of Dick Cheney is hard to stomach. You don't know what he knew. You never shouldered the weight of having to act, and living the consequences of those actions.

Enjoy your mental masturbation and imagined self importance. Carry on.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> I've got a few more questions that need answering from Obama, Hillary, Reid and Pelosi . . .


Exactly, lets just start asking the hard questions with these four.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If you want answers, go back to the oil embargoes over thirty years ago and look at how Saudi Arabia meddled with our foreign policy until recently. It explains a lot of your questions. It wasn't for Iraq's oil, it was for the protection of the Saudi monarchy and the elimination of a potential threat, or so it was thought, to the world economy.

If you question Iraq, you need to question Libya even more so. No one who held office is going to point the finger at the Saudis. More recent events involving Obama and his obeisance to the Saudis should make that obvious.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> To sit where you sit and judge a man that had the responsibilities of Dick Chaney is hard to stomach. You don't know what he knew. You never shouldered the weight of having to act, and living the consequences of those actions.
> 
> Enjoy your mental masturbation and imagined self importance. Carry on.


Interesting how that same standard doesn't extend towards the current administration. More intellectual and moral consistency from the right?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Interesting how that same standard doesn't extend towards the administration. More intellectual and moral consistency from the right?


I agree that post hand me rolling on the floor.


----------



## MoonShadows (Jan 11, 2014)

There we go....more of the left and right pointing fingers and blaming. This behavior solves nothing. Until we stop pointing fingers and blaming, and start working together, our once great country just keeps slipping further into the abyss.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

While I think both sides are the same wolves with different name tags, being on a self sufficient, take care of yourself without govt intrusion and regulation, homesteading site and being a liberal is an oxymoron. Its like the car I seen the other day in town. One side of the bumper had a sticker that said An armed society is polite society. The other said Obama/Biden 12. lol I also noticed you brought up Jesus first. He doesnt play sides. But he certainly would not stand shoulder to shoulder with those who would fight to the death for the life of a minnow in a mud puddle but fight to allow the death of innocent children by the millions.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> While I think both sides are the same wolves with different name tags, being on a self sufficient, take care of yourself without govt intrusion and regulation, homesteading site and being a liberal is an oxymoron. Its like the car I seen the other day in town. One side of the bumper had a sticker that said An armed society is polite society. The other said Obama/Biden 12. lol I also noticed you brought up Jesus first. He doesnt play sides. But he certainly would not stand shoulder to shoulder with those who would fight to the death for the life of a minnow in a mud puddle but fight to allow the death of innocent children by the millions.


I, too, believed that standard cop-out that they are all the same, sort of a "D" apology. But didn't take me too many years to learn that the progressives who are "Fundamentally Changing the U.S.A." are the real threat to U.S.A.

But of course, I agree w/your homesteading, etc, part.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The slow progressive creep has made progress, in their minds, in fits and starts. They never wasted a crisis.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Interesting how that same standard doesn't extend towards the administration. More intellectual and moral consistency from the right?


Keep your narrow viewpoint and false sense of self. That's fine 

Bush's foreign policy might have divided the US and some nations.

0bama's lack of foreign policy has divided the US and all nations.

0bama further divided America internally. Black against white. Rich against poor. Everyone divided, on purpose.

You explain to me how I can support 0bama. I want nothing more than to support our leadership and live my life to the fullest.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Keep your narrow viewpoint and false sense of self. That's fine
> 
> Bush's foreign policy might have divided the US and some nations.
> 
> ...


I didn't ask you to support the current president. I did point out your double standard. We can't judge the administration that shall not be blamed because we don't know what they knew and what informed their decisions. Except that we do now know much of what they claimed to know was, at best, tenuously true. Now, unless you are are a member of the current administration you really cannot now claim to know all that they know and be in a position to pass judgement. Your rules, not mine. I'd just wish you'd apply them consistently.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> To sit where you sit and judge a man that had the responsibilities of Dick Cheney is hard to stomach. You don't know what he knew. You never shouldered the weight of having to act, and living the consequences of those actions.
> 
> Enjoy your mental masturbation and imagined self importance. Carry on.


This is completely uncalled for. And the unmitigated hypocrisy of someone who spends every single day attacking Obama calling out someone who wants some questions answered by Cheney is just mind blowing. Do not ever say another thing about Obama or I will just remind you of your words here. 

I am going to keep a copy of this and throw it out every time you start a thread about Obama:

"To sit where you sit and judge a man that had the responsibilities of Barack Obama is hard to stomach. You don't know what he knew. You never shouldered the weight of having to act, and living the consequences of those actions."

Exactly. Exactly.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

It wasn't Cheney's responsibility anyway. He may have been playing a large part in advising the president, but the vice president has almost no power.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> It wasn't Cheney's responsibility anyway. He may have been playing a large part in advising the president, but the vice president has almost no power.


Not only that but Dick Cheney is one of the smartest men around. He SHOULD have been POTUS~!!!!!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

By the way kudos to Megyn Kelly she took down Cheney rather impressively. 



> "Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir. You said there was no doubt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the insurgency was in its last throes back in 2005, and you said that after our intervention, extremists would have to 'rethink their strategy of jihad.' Now, with almost a trillion dollars spent there, with almost 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say _you_ were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?"


Booyah!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DJ in WA said:


> This is a bit hard to watch, especially his use of the word "everyone". Well I was against it before we invaded, and questioned the intelligence, and assumed it would turn out badly. So we need to start asking Cheney some real questions, as I've listed below.


I'm not the VP but I'll take a stab at answering the questions. 




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, do you believe in the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies and be peacemakers and live by the Golden Rule?


I do but if you read you will see that when Christ was sending the Apostles out for the last time "_He said to them, âBut now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you donât have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. _" Why would He tell them to buy a sword if He didn't expect them to use it defend themselves?




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, if Barack Obama is destroying America, would you welcome forces from the middle east coming here to overthrow Obama, destroy our infrastructure, and establish a democracy, returning the favor we gave them?


If Obama starts imprisoning, torturing and killing his political opponents and the American people are unable to stand up and stop him I would gladly accept help from foreign governments. As a matter of fact if you check our history you will see we did just this back in the late 1700s. 




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, why are we in the Middle East? If not for oil, is it goat cheese?


Well DUH! Like it or not the US and the world runs on oil. Without the free flow of oil on the world market the world economy will collapse and most likely millions would die.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, if we are justified in fighting over their oil, would they be justified in fighting over our corn?


If someone was trying to interfere with the free flow of corn on the world market and that placed a nation in danger then they would be fully justified. Its called self defense.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, do you think we were morally justified in installing a dictator in Iran in 1953? Is it right to support other dictators while claiming to spread democracy?


I don't and I do. Would you have had us to refuse to help the USSR in their fight against Hitler? In the real world you sometime must follow the rule of 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Even if that "friend" maybe your enemy later.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, was it right for us to ship WMD material to Iraq to use against Iran? Why would we need to get rid of Saddam for having WMDs that we gave to him?


Proof?




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, if a foreign country was dropping bombs, or imposing sanctions that resulted in the death of your child, would you retaliate?


Depends. If the death of my child would result in freedom for my nation I would be sad but my anger would be more at those who caused the bombing not those who did the actual bombing. We killed quit a few French civilians in WWII but they didn't go around setting off car bombs while we were there fighting.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, when do you think we should stop killing children in Iraq?


Sure and as soon as our enemies stop using them as human shields the number will be greatly reduced. But there's no way to fight a war w/o killing people who's only action was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, when do you think parents in Iraq will stop becoming angry for the deaths of their children?


Are these the same parents who support using their children as human bombs?




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, after we killed their children, do you think Iraqi parents hate us because we are rich and free?


As long as their religious leaders are preaching and teaching hate they will hate anyone who does not believe as they do. You might want to check and see how many Sunni children have been killed by Shia and vice versa. 




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, why is Brazil not a target for terrorists, as they are also rich and free. Why is Brazil not fighting a war on terrorism?


Because Brazil is not currently a threat to the spread of Islam across the world.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, when do you think the war on terrorism will end?


Never. Terrorism has been going on under different names for as long as man has been on earth.




DJ in WA said:


> Should we try to stop killing children and leave their countries and see if terrorism would end?


That's like saying should we try stop arresting murders and pull the police out of crime ridden neighborhoods and see if murders and crime would end.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, do you regularly visit the maimed, debilitated and mentally deranged Iraq veterans and their families? How are the children of those veterans doing? How many veterans are committing suicide and how are their families doing?


Yes, not well, too many and not well. 




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, after lifetime care of the maimed, debilitated, and mentally deranged soldiers, how much will the Iraq war cost? How much is that per household in the U.S?


How much much did the care of "maimed, debilitated, and mentally deranged soldiers" of WWI and WWII cost? And what price tag do YOU put on freedom?




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, how will we pay for the war in Iraq? How much will you pay for the war in Iraq?


How did we pay for WWI and WWII?




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, do you think the American people should pay directly for the war, as in write a monthly check? Do you think the people should sacrifice and ration food and supplies as we did in WW2?


No. No because there are no shortages of these goods to supply our troops.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, have you read the speech, War is a Racket, by General Smedley Butler? What did you think of it?


No.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, have contractors made any money in Iraq? Has there ever been a case in which making money influenced the policy decisions of a leader?


Yes and yes.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, if you can hunt or drive, you can go to Iraq and drive in a convoy, or shoot bad guys. Are you willing to do that for a cause you truly believe in?


I'd be more of a liability than an asset but if it came to it I would gladly pick up arms to defend freedom.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, wouldn't it be better for old guys to die or be maimed, than for young guys with children?


It would be better if we didn't have to send anyone to die but if you must send someone you send those who have the best chance of getting the job done and returning alive. Like it or not old people are weaker, slower, have poorer eyesight and reaction times. That means more people would die trying to do the same job. Is that what you want, more American deaths?




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, since our country's survival is at stake, would you support mandatory combat duty for all men over 50 who can drive or shoot?


No, see above.




DJ in WA said:


> Mr. VP, what do you think of the following quote? Have you ever used fear in promoting your policies?
> 
> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials


The quote is quite accurate. The same for the following "[FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial][SIZE=-1]Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

What do you think about the following statements:

_There are times when you have to defend yourself or someone else against relentless evil. And some of those times the only defense that has any hope of succeeding is a one-time use of brutal, devastation force. At such times good people act brutally.

That's how war is fought, in case any of you have foolish ideas to the contrary. You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at it its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms._
[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I am confused about one thing. How can the ISIS have captured a chemical weapon stock pile when, according to the left, there were never any chemical weapons in Iraq?

Seems to me either Bush was wrong then or Obama is wrong now. Which is it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> I am confused about one thing. How can the ISIS have captured a chemical weapon stock pile when, according to the left, there were never any chemical weapons in Iraq?
> 
> Seems to me either Bush was wrong then or Obama is wrong now. Which is it?


The left never said that but don,t let the truth stop you from reposting the lies.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> While I think both sides are the same wolves with different name tags, being on a self sufficient, take care of yourself without govt intrusion and regulation, *homesteading site and being a liberal is an oxymoron*.


Maybe for you, not for me, works for me.


----------



## Jason72 (Jul 21, 2013)

painterswife said:


> The left never said that but don,t let the truth stop you from reposting the lies.


The left has and keeps repeating the lie that they where not there. Do you need your words spelled out for you?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jason72 said:


> The left has and keeps repeating the lie that they where not there. Do you need your words spelled out for you?


That must be some creative spelling. Go ahead it should be worth a laugh at least.

"Not there" is not the same as "not ever there".


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

There were weapons of mass destruction. They just gave old Saddam enough time to ship them to Iran and Syria to be used on their own people. And anybody who says the world is not Better off with Saddam gone is crazy. Many of you weren't there to see the babies hanging from the city walls with their stomachs cut open and their mothers tied to post beneath them where they starved to death. I had family members who were first on the ground and witnessed that. He had to be thrown out of power to save those poor people. It's easy to talk about things we know nothing of from our safe and cozy homes. But there is alot of evil out there that must be dealt with by force. And liberals always paint a pretty picture of these peaceful utopias. Well look at their peaceful utopias they have built like Detroit Chicago and every other liberal run inner city in America. Those places never have true conservatives in power and it shows.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Sorry auto correct gets me all the time. Lol


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> This is completely uncalled for. And the unmitigated hypocrisy of someone who spends every single day attacking Obama calling out someone who wants some questions answered by Cheney is just mind blowing. Do not ever say another thing about Obama or I will just remind you of your words here.
> 
> I am going to keep a copy of this and throw it out every time you start a thread about Obama:
> 
> ...


9/11 was thrust on Bush and Cheney. I am not condoning going to war. But I am not condemning it either. There are things that go on that I don't know the facts on. Bush had a crisis, and 2/3 of Congress, including the opposite party, voted to go to war along with our most ardent ally saw the need to go to war. I am neither Polly Anna or in possession of the facts to judge their actions. I did not like their decision, but I was not in their shoes.

0bama's term has been nothing but the politics of envy and division. The crisis we face in his term is of his own making. Those facts are plain to see if one's eyes are open.

You go right ahead and use my words any way you see fit if you truly believe what you say. I stand firmly by what I said.

To equate 0bama and Bush is a very poor match up of motivations and actions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> 9/11 was thrust on Bush and Cheney. I am not condoning going to war. But I am not condemning it either. There are things that go on that I don't know the facts on. Bush had a crisis, and 2/3 of Congress, including the opposite party, voted to go to war along with our most ardent ally saw the need to go to war. I am neither Polly Anna or in possession of the facts to judge their actions. I did not like their decision, but I was not in their shoes.
> 
> 0bama's term has been nothing but the politics of envy and division. The crisis we face in his term is of his own making. Those facts are plain to see if one's eyes are open.
> 
> ...


Care to explain to me the ties between what happened on 9/11 and Iraq?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Care to explain to me the ties between what happened on 9/11 and Iraq?


Iraq was funding, hiding and supplying the terrorist with intel. Notice how we didnt take any of the oil you guys say it was all about?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Care to explain to me the ties between what happened on 9/11 and Iraq?


I don't know, and neither do you. You may believe you do with every fiber in your body, but you do not KNOW.

If you think we went to war for no reason other than to make Halliburton rich you and I have NO COMMON GROUND, NONE.

I trust Bush some, 0bama none.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I don't know, and neither do you. You may believe you do with every fiber in your body, but you do not KNOW.
> 
> If you think we went to war for no reason other than to make Halliburton rich you and I have NO COMMON GROUND, NONE.
> 
> I trust Bush some, 0bama none.


Once again I only ask that you live up to your own standards. If I cannot know for certain how is it that you do? I will tell you what I do know.
I do know that the 9/11 commission found no ties between what happened on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. I do know that Paul Wolfowitz, you might remember him as one of the architects of the Iraq invasion, stated there were no links between Iraq and 9/11. I do know that the administration that shall not be blamed never produced the overwhelming evidence they claimed to have of close ties between Saddam and Osama. 

I also know that you presume to know an awful lot about what I think and are quick to put words in my mouth. I also know you don't know what you think you know.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Once again I only ask that you live up to your own standards. If I cannot know for certain how is it that you do? I will tell you what I do know.
> I do know that the 9/11 commission found no ties between what happened on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. I do know that Paul Wolfowitz, you might remember him as one of the architects of the Iraq invasion, stated there were no links between Iraq and 9/11. I do know that the administration that shall not be blamed never produced the overwhelming evidence they claimed to have of close ties between Saddam and Osama.
> 
> I also know that you presume to know an awful lot about what I think and are quick to put words in my mouth. I also know you don't know what you think you know.


I know that all our allies agreed with the UN, and that our congress also agreed with all the intelligence from all our allies too!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The left never said that but don,t let the truth stop you from reposting the lies.


Then who was it that was running around shouting "Bush lied and people died!" and how Bush should be impeached because he lied about there being chemical weapons in Iraq, the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' crowd?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Random thought warning. . . . 

The problems we are having now come directly from the fact pols want to fight wars but not kill people added to the fact people in civilized western nations can not understand the mind set of the people we are fighting.

How many of us here can understand the mindset of someone who would kill his daughter because she did something to 'dishonor' her family? How many of us can understand the mind set in which a mother celebrates the fact her young son strapped a bomb on his body and blew up a bus full of school children?

Until you understand that 'those people' have different ways of thinking and a completely different view on what is right/moral you'll never "get it". And until you "get it" you are not going to be able to effectively fight them.

To those who preach 'why don't we just live and let live'. You can't just live and let live with someone who wants you dead. Look how well that worked for the Jews in Nazi occupied areas of Europe. When they were told they had to paint a Star of David on their businesses, to live and let live they painted the Star of David on their businesses. When they were told they had to wear the Star of David on their person any time they were in public, to live and let live they wore a Star of David. When they were told they had to move into Ghettos, to live and let live they moved. When they were told to pack up and get on trains to go to 'camps', to live and let live they packed up and got on the trains. When they were told to get the bodies out of the "showers", to remove the gold teeth from the dead, to load the bodies into the ovens in the spirit of live and let live they did just that. History would have been somewhat different if they had stood up and said "These people want us dead we must fight for our lives." 

Anyone who has studied any military tactics will tell you there is only one real way to 'pacify' an area. You make the people in the are fear you so much they turn against those in the mist who want to fight you while you show that you are only a danger to your enemies. As the old saying goes; No better friend, no worse enemy. Put yourself in such a situation. Joe comes up and says if you support us we'll help you dig a well and give you some animals and seed to help you grow food. After he leaves Jim comes in and says support us or we'll rape your wife and daughter before your eyes then hang your son by his arms and slit his belly so you can watch him die with his guts around his ankles. Who are you going to put your support behind?

Again I have to point out we are dealing with people who DO NOT SEE THE WORLD AS WE DO.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> I know that all our allies agreed with the UN, and that our congress also agreed with all the intelligence from all our allies too!


Brings to mind my mother asking what I would do if all my friends decided to jump off a steep cliff.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Random thought warning. . . .
> 
> The problems we are having now come directly from the fact pols want to fight wars but not kill people added to the fact people in civilized western nations can not understand the mind set of the people we are fighting.
> 
> ...


Your point is valid. It then begs the question of who we are or who do we wish to become? Are we the people who wish to impose our will by threatening rape, murder, and other atrocities. Does that not make us equally as bad as those we revile? 

I think the world is better off without Saddam and his offspring in it. My concern had never been about the justifications given for invading Iraq or even the plan and execution of the invasion. My concern has long been how we messed up victory so badly. I would only have one question for Mr Cheney and one possible follow up. My question would be whether he felt any responsibilty for conditions in Iraq today. If he answered no I would have nothing further. If he answered yes I would only ask him what he might have done differently that would have given us a better outcome. My same questions stand for President Bush and any others involved in the planning and execution of our Iraq strategy.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

watcher said:


> I'm not the VP but I'll take a stab at answering the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't believe you actually think these are good answers. You may want to read your history books and changed some of your answers. By the way, the French DID attack and kill American soldiers during WWII.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> This is completely uncalled for. And the unmitigated hypocrisy of someone who spends every single day attacking Obama calling out someone who wants some questions answered by Cheney is just mind blowing. Do not ever say another thing about Obama or I will just remind you of your words here.
> 
> I am going to keep a copy of this and throw it out every time you start a thread about Obama:
> 
> ...


I could say the same about your undying adoration for anything Obama.
We've seen that he actually knows NOTHING. He states it himself. He shows it daily in his hesitation to do ANYTHING. So to say we don't know what he knows is hilarious. I WISH he knew what MOST of us know!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> There were weapons of mass destruction. They just gave old Saddam enough time to ship them to Iran and Syria to be used on their own people. And anybody who says the world is not Better off with Saddam gone is crazy. Many of you weren't there to see the babies hanging from the city walls with their stomachs cut open and their mothers tied to post beneath them where they starved to death. I had family members who were first on the ground and witnessed that. He had to be thrown out of power to save those poor people. It's easy to talk about things we know nothing of from our safe and cozy homes. But there is alot of evil out there that must be dealt with by force. And liberals always paint a pretty picture of these peaceful utopias. Well look at their peaceful utopias they have built like Detroit Chicago and every other liberal run inner city in America. Those places never have true conservatives in power and it shows.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> Random thought warning. . . .
> 
> The problems we are having now come directly from the fact pols want to fight wars but not kill people added to the fact people in civilized western nations can not understand the mind set of the people we are fighting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Your point is valid. It then begs the question of who we are or who do we wish to become? Are we the people who wish to impose our will by threatening rape, murder, and other atrocities. Does that not make us equally as bad as those we revile?
> 
> I think the world is better off without Saddam and his offspring in it. My concern had never been about the justifications given for invading Iraq or even the plan and execution of the invasion. My concern has long been how we messed up victory so badly. I would only have one question for Mr Cheney and one possible follow up. My question would be whether he felt any responsibilty for conditions in Iraq today. If he answered no I would have nothing further. If he answered yes I would only ask him what he might have done differently that would have given us a better outcome. My same questions stand for President Bush and any others involved in the planning and execution of our Iraq strategy.


I will have to agree that the Bush admin SHOULD HAVE gotten us out waaaay b/4 Obama came along as the Idiotincharge & completely fouled up everything.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Once again I only ask that you live up to your own standards. If I cannot know for certain how is it that you do? I will tell you what I do know.
> I do know that the 9/11 commission found no ties between what happened on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. I do know that Paul Wolfowitz, you might remember him as one of the architects of the Iraq invasion, stated there were no links between Iraq and 9/11.  I do know that the administration that shall not be blamed never produced the overwhelming evidence they claimed to have of close ties between Saddam and Osama.
> 
> I also know that you presume to know an awful lot about what I think and are quick to put words in my mouth. I also know you don't know what you think you know.


So why did we go? Was it to keep Iraq weapons out of the hands of some terrorist organization. We don't know. Maybe you do. Tell us.

Again you assume way too much and sit on the sidelines judging those that have to act, those that must lead in situation not of their own making and circumstances that only present bad choices.

Foresight and hindsight are two very different things.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Your point is valid. It then begs the question of who we are or who do we wish to become? Are we the people who wish to impose our will by threatening rape, murder, and other atrocities. Does that not make us equally as bad as those we revile?


We wish to become the winners and therefore must do what must be done. During WWII we firebombed entire Japanese cities. We intentionally killed tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children, in our fight for victory. But in Europe the US sacrificed thousands of men we didn't have too in daylight bombing raids so we could use "precision bombing" so we could avoid as many civilian deaths as possible. Why? Several reasons but one was because we knew the mindset of the Japanese was different than that of the Germans and Italians.




mmoetc said:


> I think the world is better off without Saddam and his offspring in it. My concern had never been about the justifications given for invading Iraq or even the plan and execution of the invasion. My concern has long been how we messed up victory so badly.


What victory? Saying you won the war doesn't make it so. You only win a war when your enemy no longer has the ability nor will to continue fighting and that's when you stop fighting. Military people understand this, pols and the general public don't. They want to stop fighting ASAP so we "stop killing children". 




mmoetc said:


> I would only have one question for Mr Cheney and one possible follow up. My question would be whether he felt any responsibilty for conditions in Iraq today. If he answered no I would have nothing further. If he answered yes I would only ask him what he might have done differently that would have given us a better outcome. My same questions stand for President Bush and any others involved in the planning and execution of our Iraq strategy.


I'll answer but remember I'm not a pol. Yes we are responsible both morally and legally under international laws of war. What we should have done differently was to use, and continue using, military force at the maximum level until everyone realized continued fighting would mean nothing but more death and destruction.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> I can't believe you actually think these are good answers. You may want to read your history books and changed some of your answers.


You might want to STUDY some of your history books. I challenge you to show me where my answers are not supported by most of history.




bignugly said:


> By the way, the French DID attack and kill American soldiers during WWII.


If you check you will find that even after American troops had all but destroyed their towns the French still greeted them with joy. And afterwards, during the American 'occupation' the French didn't form resistance groups to kill Americans.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

DJ in WA said:


> This is a bit hard to watch, especially his use of the word "everyone". Well I was against it before we invaded, and questioned the intelligence, and assumed it would turn out badly. So we need to start asking Cheney some real questions, as I've listed below.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6dWbbaylo&feature=youtu.be
> 
> ...


I thought we were so done with this Ron Paul worshiping libertarian BS. Find a life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Then who was it that was running around shouting "Bush lied and people died!" and how Bush should be impeached because he lied about there being chemical weapons in Iraq, the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' crowd?


Still passing off crap as the truth. Repeating it does not make it true.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Still passing off crap as the truth. Repeating it does not make it true.


The truth hurts don't it? That has been the cry form the left for over 12 years time to git over it, and move onto something of substance and true.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> The truth hurts don't it? That has been the cry form the left for over 12 years time to git over it, and move onto something of substance and true.


How can lies hurt? Your stance is that it is fine to question everyone but the people you believe in. I no longer find that you have a leg to stand on when you offer an opinion. That is how much weight I will give to your postings.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> So why did we go? Was it to keep Iraq weapons out of the hands of some terrorist organization. We don't know. Maybe you do. Tell us.
> 
> Again you assume way too much and sit on the sidelines judging those that have to act, those that must lead in situation not of their own making and circumstances that only present bad choices.
> 
> Foresight and hindsight are two very different things.


At this point I'm not really sure what the true rationale was. If you want to continue to believe that it was to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists it was either an outright failure of intelligence or policy as the weapons were never found. So either they didn't exist or, as some here claim they were transferred to other countries. Either way the goal was unrealized.

My personal belief is that there were a combination of reasons, not all of them misguided. If we cannot look back on historical facts, and we have many concerning the actions of the previous administration, and judge the success or failure of those actions then any discussion of history is sort of moot, isn't it. There's a reason that hindsight can sometimes be 20/20.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Still passing off crap as the truth. Repeating it does not make it true.






















































Are you saying these are right leaning repub supporting types?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> There were weapons of mass destruction. They just gave old Saddam enough time to ship them to Iran and Syria to be used on their own people.


 I realize you're new to this forum,and I don't want to sound harsh, but please do some basic research before wasting our time with such easily debunked nonsense.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> At this point I'm not really sure what the true rationale was. If you want to continue to believe that it was to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists it was either an outright failure of intelligence or policy as the weapons were never found. So either they didn't exist or, as some here claim they were transferred to other countries. Either way the goal was unrealized.


Its quite simple. We attacked Iraq because they invaded Kuwait and threaded the free flow of oil on the world market. We resumed hostilities after YEARS of them repeatedly breaking the cease fire agreement they signed. NOTE: There was no 'peace treaty' nor any other type of permanent end to the fighting in the 90s therefore we were still at war with them all through Bush 41's, Clinton's and Bush 43's administrations.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> *There were weapons of mass destruction. They just gave old Saddam enough time to ship them to Iran and Syria to be used on their own people.* And anybody who says the world is not Better off with Saddam gone is crazy. Many of you weren't there to see the babies hanging from the city walls with their stomachs cut open and their mothers tied to post beneath them where they starved to death. I had family members who were first on the ground and witnessed that. He had to be thrown out of power to save those poor people. It's easy to talk about things we know nothing of from our safe and cozy homes. But there is alot of evil out there that must be dealt with by force. And liberals always paint a pretty picture of these peaceful utopias. Well look at their peaceful utopias they have built like Detroit Chicago and every other liberal run inner city in America. Those places never have true conservatives in power and it shows.


 You nailed it.
There were reports of Truck loads leaving the area just before we got there.
But the left will never ever believe the Truth. It doesn't fit their agenda of Bush Lied. Lies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Are you saying these are right leaning repub supporting types?


Bush did lie. He lied that they were there at the time he invaded. There were there previously but not then.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

greg273 said:


> I realize you're new to this forum,and I don't want to sound harsh, but please do some basic research before wasting our time with such easily debunked nonsense.


Your right. I am new to this forum but am a long time veteran of common sense. Which thankfully it appears most on this forum are as well. There were infact MANY videos of large caravans of trucks leaving Iraq the week before our invasion. Saddam was proven without a doubt that he had WMD's. All Intel said he did as well. And all the nations of the world who rallied with us had the same Intel we did and they knew it. I dont just pull stuff out of thin air. I come from a military family. One of which carries the highest clearance in the land and works soley on national security and has for over 30 years. And I can assure you they all knew wmd's were there within days of the invasion and could not chance that there werent more. Ol Hillary knew it too which is why her and the rest of the dems voted for the war.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your right. I am new to this forum but am a long time veteran of common sense. Which thankfully it appears most on this forum are as well. There were infact MANY videos of large caravans of trucks leaving Iraq the week before our invasion. Saddam was proven without a doubt that he had WMD's. All Intel said he did as well. And all the nations of the world who rallied with us had the same Intel we did and they knew it. I dont just pull stuff out of thin air. I come from a military family. One of which carries the highest clearance in the land and works soley on national security and has for over 30 years. And I can assure you they all knew wmd's were there within days of the invasion and could not chance that there werent more. Ol Hillary knew it too which is why her and the rest of the dems voted for the war.


 You are so true and Bush did not lie about WMS either but the left just can't see that because they got their heads buried in you know where. LOL


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Here are a few quotes from our govt on Iraqs WMD's. You can read it on the govt public website.



In 2010 that during the occupation of Iraq the U.S. military discovered many small caches of chemical weapons, but others claimed that Russia had helped Hussein hide the most dangerous WMD stockpiles into Syria. The plot took a new twist when Syrian rebels began identifying weapons that came from Iraq last year. Then when Russia began to oversee Assad&#8217;s supposed disarmament of chemical weapons John A. Shaw, the former Pentagon official who claims to have tracked Iraq&#8217;s WMDs being moved out by Russian special forces, claimed that it was possible some of these chemical weapons were being hid back in Iraq. After Iraq was occupied, reports from the CIA concluded they found Iraq&#8217;s WMD development programs, which included a very early development nuclear weapons program and an unexpected air force buried in the sand.

It goes on to say

&#8220;The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin&#8230;. Isis has shown ambitions to seize and use chemical weapons in Syria leading experts to warn last night that the group could turn to improvised weapons to carry out a deadly attack in Iraq.&#8221;

So many of these things were and still are there.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Bush did lie. He lied that they were there at the time he invaded. There were there previously but not then.


Then where did the weapons that everyone is saying ISIS has captured come from?

Some quotes from the UK Telegraph 19 Jun 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

_The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin

__Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of Britainâs chemical weapons regiment, said that al-Muthanna has large stores of weaponized and bulk mustard gas and sarin. _

Note how it states there are hundreds of tonnes there NOW.

So either Bush was correct and there were weapons in Iraq or some one is fibbing now.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Then where did the weapons that everyone is saying ISIS has captured come from?
> 
> Some quotes from the UK Telegraph 19 Jun 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html
> 
> ...


Read the thread again. It is all laid out for you by several posters.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2014)

***********


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your right. I am new to this forum but am a long time veteran of common sense. Which thankfully it appears most on this forum are as well. *There were infact MANY videos of large caravans of trucks leaving Iraq the week before our invasion*. Saddam was proven without a doubt that he had WMD's. All Intel said he did as well. And all the nations of the world who rallied with us had the same Intel we did and they knew it. I dont just pull stuff out of thin air. I come from a military family. One of which carries the highest clearance in the land and works soley on national security and has for over 30 years. And I can assure you they all knew wmd's were there within days of the invasion and could not chance that there werent more. Ol Hillary knew it too which is why her and the rest of the dems voted for the war.


I have always wondered why if there is video of this ,that there is no gunsite footage alongside it? we had air superiority and if WMD's in fact existed we didn't bomb the convoys in the desert.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> I have always wondered why if there is video of this ,that there is no gunsite footage alongside it? we had air superiority and if WMD's in fact existed we didn't bomb the convoys in the desert.


My understanding was that if they bombed the caravans, that those wmd chemicals would be dispersed and hundreds of thousands might die. At least that was what I remember.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> 9/11 was thrust on Bush and Cheney. I am not condoning going to war. But I am not condemning it either. There are things that go on that I don't know the facts on. Bush had a crisis, and 2/3 of Congress, including the opposite party, voted to go to war along with our most ardent ally saw the need to go to war. I am neither Polly Anna or in possession of the facts to judge their actions. I did not like their decision, but I was not in their shoes.
> 
> 0bama's term has been nothing but the politics of envy and division. The crisis we face in his term is of his own making. Those facts are plain to see if one's eyes are open.
> 
> ...


Obama's term has only been about envy and division because REPUBLICANS spun it that way. Obama did not come in that way and he tried for a very long time to keep things as cordial and adult as possible and Conservatives would not let it happen. Just look at the posts right here on this board for the honest reality. Who consistently acts juvenile? Drags the discussion into the muck? Calls childish names, posts childish memes, screams bloody murder and nonsense as soon as they start losing the argument? It's not the Liberals. 

At least you openly admit your dislike of Obama and the fact that you have allowed it to warp your thinking on him. If you can defend Bush and yet condemn everything Obama has done it is quite obvious you never gave him one single moment's fair shake.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

^^^^Call me sceptical I guess.^^^^^


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Glade Runner said:


> I thought we were so done with this Ron Paul worshiping libertarian BS. Find a life.


Have no real response so hurl an insult. So typical for conservatives.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Obama's term has only been about envy and division because REPUBLICANS spun it that way. Obama did not come in that way and he tried for a very long time to keep things as cordial and adult as possible and Conservatives would not let it happen. Just look at the posts right here on this board for the honest reality. Who consistently acts juvenile? Drags the discussion into the muck? Calls childish names, posts childish memes, screams bloody murder and nonsense as soon as they start losing the argument? It's not the Liberals.
> 
> At least you openly admit your dislike of Obama and the fact that you have allowed it to warp your thinking on him. If you can defend Bush and yet condemn everything Obama has done it is quite obvious you never gave him one single moment's fair shake.


You have such a twisted perspective, simply twisted. I read both of 0's books as soon as he sprung on the scene. I wanted a different kind of leader, just like everyone did. I just saw him for what he is, where so many did not. It was obvious from then on he was a person bent on socialism and using his own words, "fundamentally changing America". What do you think he meant? 

Twisted, your word for the day. Twisted.

I know you will throw your usual claim of being insulted. Jack its a fact. Your take on things is skewed. That is a word for you the next day. Skewed.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> You have such a twisted perspective, simply twisted. I read both of 0's books as soon as he sprung on the scene. I wanted a different kind of leader, just like everyone did. I just saw him for what he is, where so many did not. It was obvious from then on he was a person bent on socialism and using his own words, "fundamentally changing America". What do you think he meant?
> 
> Twisted, your word for the day. Twisted.
> 
> I know you will throw your usual claim of being insulted. Jack its a fact. Your take on things is skewed. That is a word for you the next day. Skewed.


And this is exactly why we will never have a third party...... Or any true political discussion. :bored:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I'm wondering how we all get grouped into folks who have not done their homework...is it b/c no one pays attention?

I KNOW virtually all of us did our homework. I will admit to being a doofus & thinking "Wow, look at this black senator who seems so bright & able...wouldn't it be great if we had a great black POTUS." 
Then I did my homework. Read his books. ACK!
Read all his lies. ACK!
Read all his HISTORY! ACK! I realize the left thinks its a wonderful thing to have done drugs all thru H.S. & to hide all your college transcrips-ACK!...many have said they found that the Idiotincharge went to Columbia on a foreign student scholarship. I tend to believe that. Where's anything that says different?
Then he lied about his mother's death. Anyone who'd do that is scum in my book right there.
He lied about being "...a product of the Selma march". 
He lied about not ever hearing or knowing rev wright was an America hating bigot.
He lied about Bill Ayers.
His wife was not proud of our country.
He said we were "...just days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America!"
There's soooo much more, the stinkulus that HAD to be passed right now of we'd have unemployment over 8%...gee, and we did anyway.
He LAUGHED about the FACT that there were NO "...shovel ready jobs."
He put nothing but socialists/marxists/communists in the WH as czars & advisors. No one w/biz experience. How are we gonna improve the economy & help form more jobs???
Well, we know that was not the priority.
The ObummerUNcare is hated by the majority of the country so not sure why you are blaming conserves for everything bad that is said about this failure, this incompetent loser.

He has been a loser from the very start. "Rs" didn't make him a loser. He failed at everything.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your right. I am new to this forum but am a long time veteran of common sense. Which thankfully it appears most on this forum are as well. There were infact MANY videos of large caravans of trucks leaving Iraq the week before our invasion. Saddam was proven without a doubt that he had WMD's. All Intel said he did as well.


 If the Bush admin was so concerned about finding WMD in Iraq, and noticed 'large caravans' of the stuff leaving suspected WMD sites and heading to Syria, they would have destroyed it on the roads, or watched exactly where it went and neutralized it. We had complete air superiority over the skies of Iraq for the decade prior to the invasion and intel assets all over the area. Unless you have some groundbreaking new info, the claims of 'WMD to Syria' are NOT credible. 
And not 'all intel said he had them'... there were plenty of dissenting voices, but they were marginalized and brushed aside in the rush to invade. 
What we did find, a few degraded pre-1991 munitions, do not constitute 'stockpiles'. The preponderance of evidence has shown, despite the claims by the Bush admin, there was no active production, and no 'stockpiles of WMD' in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm wondering how we all get grouped into folks who have not done their homework...is it b/c no one pays attention?
> 
> I KNOW virtually all of us did our homework. I will admit to being a doofus & thinking "Wow, look at this black senator who seems so bright & able...wouldn't it be great if we had a great black POTUS."
> Then I did my homework. Read his books. ACK!
> ...


It is because you keep repeating stuff that is not true. It is really hard to believe you have done your homework when it is obvious that you believe those right wing websites that pretend to be giving you news.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It is because you keep repeating stuff that is not true. It is really hard to believe you have done your homework when it is obvious that you believe those right wing websites that pretend to be giving you news.


Exactly. I couldn't take the repeated nonsense anymore so I had to turn down the noise here a bit. On the rare occasions I do see it I always feel very good about my decision. If I wanted a list of "Obummer's" failings I could just hit up Fox, the Daily Caller, Breitbart or The Blaze for all of this trumped up blather.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Bush did lie. He lied that they were there at the time he invaded. There were there previously but not then.


Ok let me get this straight. You are saying that Iraq had chemical weapons BEFORE the coalition attacked in 1991 (proved by Saddam's use of them against Iran and the Kurds) but before we resumed hostilities in 2003 they had none yet now in 2014 everyone is reporting there are such weapons in Iraq. I'm very confused. . . Is there some kind of chemical weapons worm hole which they keep slipping in and out of?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Ok let me get this straight. You are saying that Iraq had chemical weapons BEFORE the coalition attacked in 1991 (proved by Saddam's use of them against Iran and the Kurds) but before we resumed hostilities in 2003 they had none yet now in 2014 everyone is reporting there are such weapons in Iraq. I'm very confused. . . Is there some kind of chemical weapons worm hole which they keep slipping in and out of?


The only chemical weapons found now is an old almost useless stockpile. No need to be confused you have the wrong information in the first place.


----------



## Jason72 (Jul 21, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Obama's term has only been about envy and division because REPUBLICANS spun it that way. Obama did not come in that way and he tried for a very long time to keep things as cordial and adult as possible and Conservatives would not let it happen. Just look at the posts right here on this board for the honest reality. Who consistently acts juvenile? Drags the discussion into the muck? Calls childish names, posts childish memes, screams bloody murder and nonsense as soon as they start losing the argument? It's not the Liberals.
> 
> At least you openly admit your dislike of Obama and the fact that you have allowed it to warp your thinking on him. If you can defend Bush and yet condemn everything Obama has done it is quite obvious you never gave him one single moment's fair shake.


 Funny how your hero worship forgets him telling Canter elections have consequences and him during the ellection telling people to get into peoples faces. It's your lies to tell, but I will call you on them along with your near like nazism following of him.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

greg273 said:


> If the Bush admin was so concerned about finding WMD in Iraq, and noticed 'large caravans' of the stuff leaving suspected WMD sites and heading to Syria, they would have destroyed it on the roads, or watched exactly where it went and neutralized it. We had complete air superiority over the skies of Iraq for the decade prior to the invasion and intel assets all over the area. Unless you have some groundbreaking new info, the claims of 'WMD to Syria' are NOT credible.
> And not 'all intel said he had them'... there were plenty of dissenting voices, but they were marginalized and brushed aside in the rush to invade.
> What we did find, a few degraded pre-1991 munitions, do not constitute 'stockpiles'. The preponderance of evidence has shown, despite the claims by the Bush admin, there was no active production, and no 'stockpiles of WMD' in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion.


Unlike obama, Bush followed protocol through the UN and legislative process. Something this admin knows nothing about. That takes time and in that time things were shipped out. And all this obama tried stuff in nonsense. Here is what people forget. Every law that came into play in Bush's last two years, you know the years it all went down hill? They were written and passed by the democrat lead house and senate. Bushes mistake was signing their filth that put us here. And obama had full and total control of house and senate for two years. What did he do with it? What did he change? He could have passed any good stuff he wanted. Instead he stuck us with a crappy healthcare law that is going to ruin us.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The only chemical weapons found now is an old almost useless stockpile. No need to be confused you have the wrong information in the first place.


So you are saying there are chemical weapons there now but they were not there when Bush said they were?

BTW, I do know a bit about what are now called WMD (they were called NBC [nuke, chem, bio] in the olden days) and I can tell you that even an "old almost useless" chemical weapons are still able to kill a LOT of people. 

And "useless" is a retaliative term. I'm betting its considered "almost useless" because there are no conventional delivery systems (e.g. artillery shells) to load it into? If you do a little research you should find that when Iraq first started using chemical weapons against the Iranians their delivery system was pushing barrels out the backs of helos. If there is still even a small stock pile it would be not that difficult for people who are more than willing to die for their cause to load some on the back of a truck and blow it up in the middle of a crowd.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jason72 said:


> Funny how your hero worship forgets him telling Canter elections have consequences and him during the ellection telling people to get into peoples faces. It's your lies to tell, but I will call you on them along with your near like nazism following of him.


Well you go right on calling me out if it makes you happier. Sadly for you the use of Nazi in a post earns you an ignore from me though so I won't be seeing those posts. Might want to take it down a notch since you just joined the board.  Calling people liars and Nazis right out of the box is a bit much.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Unlike obama, Bush followed protocol through the UN and legislative process. Something this admin knows nothing about. That takes time and in that time things were shipped out.


 Again, unless you have some new evidence, the 'WMD to Syria' thing is not credible. The Iraq Survey Group didn't believe it, and there is still no hard evidence saying it happened. I find it difficult to believe that with all of our intel assets they would have missed the mass movement of 'WMD stockpiles' just walking across the desert into Syria. 
And where were the production facilities? Don't forget the UN inspectors were in-country, and in the months preceding the invasion, were given unfettered access to wherever they wanted to go. And they were finding NOTHING. Until of course, Bush ordered them out so he could get his war on. 
And this whole notion of Bush following protocol is bogus also... he went to the UN to seek their blessing for invasion and never got it, so went ahead an invaded anyway. You complain about Obama, didn't he go to Congress before attacking Syria? And the attack on Libya was UN mandated also, or perhaps you've forgotten. 
Bush was warned by some very smart people that invasion and occupation was not a good idea. It did nothing to help the 'war on terror', did nothing for stability in the middle east, and did nothing to make America safer. And Dick Cheney still has yet to be correct on ANYTHING in regards to Iraq. You know its bad when FOX news calls him out on it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Well you go right on calling me out if it makes you happier. Sadly for you the use of Nazi in a post earns you an ignore from me though so I won't be seeing those posts.


 It doesn't look like you'll be missing much.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...Vfkeuds8Y840gWVNgQuA4VdTNCz6G1ZmFD0oJZyCI5RPV


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HuskyBoris said:


> HB's pic


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2014)

I for one don't believe those convoys were hauling sand .


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2014)

painterswife said:


> The only chemical weapons found now is an old almost useless stockpile. No need to be confused you have the wrong information in the first place.


Does almost useless mean that they'll almost kill you ?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

WV Hillbilly said:


> Does almost useless mean that they'll almost kill you ?


Almost useless means they probably won't kill anyone at all.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It is because you keep repeating stuff that is not true. It is really hard to believe you have done your homework when it is obvious that you believe those right wing websites that pretend to be giving you news.


Riiiight. So, what parts of Obama's book is not true? 
I have never in my life been on a right wing website.
Been on Huffy a few too many times, tho.
Of the things above I listed, what is not true?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Well you go right on calling me out if it makes you happier. Sadly for you the use of Nazi in a post earns you an ignore from me though so I won't be seeing those posts. Might want to take it down a notch since you just joined the board.  Calling people liars and Nazis right out of the box is a bit much.


Some people learn fast. No need to read a ton of posts. Any adoration comes thru loud & clear.

Still waiting to hear what LIES we've been posting about Obama.
Never mind yelling about birthers...haven't said a word about that on this thread. That ship has sailed anyway...if there was proof either way today it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

WV Hillbilly said:


> Does almost useless mean that they'll almost kill you ?












Seems someone's almost worried about them now too, according to the news.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Almost useless means they probably won't kill anyone at all.


You might want to do a little research on chemical weapons and how long they remain potent.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You might want to do a little research on chemical weapons and how long they remain potent.


So let's stipulate that this storage facility, which was known about for at least 10 years prior to our invasion, was what the administration was speaking of when it discussed urgent threats, 1000's of warheads ready to be used, ongoing research and production facilities, the danger of WMD's being given to terrorist groups or any of the other statements made concerning the threat of WMDs in Iraq during the run up to war. We invaded a sovereign country, overthrew its government, dismantled its civil structure, lost 4500+ of our best and bravest, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars just to leave in place the very thing we previously called such a threat when we left. Sounds like a good plan to me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Riiiight. So, what parts of Obama's book is not true?
> I have never in my life been on a right wing website.
> Been on Huffy a few too many times, tho.
> Of the things above I listed, what is not true?


Did I say anything about what was true or not true in Obama's book? Twisting in the wind.

So many of the things you say about Obama are not true that I would be wasting my time listing them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So let's stipulate that this storage facility, which was known about for at least 10 years prior to our invasion, was what the administration was speaking of when it discussed urgent threats, 1000's of warheads ready to be used, ongoing research and production facilities, the danger of WMD's being given to terrorist groups or any of the other statements made concerning the threat of WMDs in Iraq during the run up to war. We invaded a sovereign country, overthrew its government, dismantled its civil structure, lost 4500+ of our best and bravest, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars just to leave in place the very thing we previously called such a threat when we left. Sounds like a good plan to me.


Care to show me where it was said there were "1000's of warheads ready"? I remember it being said, by people from across the political spectrum, Iraq was working to rebuild its chemical weapons program. This was supported by the fact Iraq was refusing to allow international inspection of its sights, as required under the cease fire agreement, and by what little intel we were getting out of Iraq.

But you seem not have a great grasp of history. We invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait, we stopped shooting at them when they agreed to follow the rules we set out for them. They then spend the next 10+ years violating those rules. We should have resumed hostilities 7 years sooner than we did and fought like we were there to win and we would not still be there nor have lost so many lives.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Care to show me where it was said there were "1000's of warheads ready"? I remember it being said, by people from across the political spectrum, Iraq was working to rebuild its chemical weapons program. This was supported by the fact Iraq was refusing to allow international inspection of its sights, as required under the cease fire agreement, and by what little intel we were getting out of Iraq.
> 
> But you seem not have a great grasp of history. We invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait, we stopped shooting at them when they agreed to follow the rules we set out for them. They then spend the next 10+ years violating those rules. We should have resumed hostilities 7 years sooner than we did and fought like we were there to win and we would not still be there nor have lost so many lives.


Maybe 1000's of warheads was a bit of hyperbole on my part but here's a quote from President Bush from Feb. 8, 2003-"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, ...". Hard to believe they could have used them if they weren't in some kind of warhead, artillery shell or some other weaponized form. 

Now, tell me how leaving in place the very thing that was such a threat 12 years ago was great strategy and evidence of a successful mission.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Iraq was refusing to allow international inspection of its sights, as required under the cease fire agreement, and by what little intel we were getting out of Iraq.
> 
> But you seem not have a great grasp of history.


 Seems it is YOU who doesn't have a 'great grasp of history'... The UN inspectors, in the months prior to the invasion, were given UNFETTERED access to wherever they wanted to go in Iraq, and were finding NOTHING. 
And you also don't seem to recall the many people saying the intel on Iraq was suspect, and those saying invasion was the wrong move, for exactly the reasons we are seeing now. And for those who say 'Iraq was great until Obama abandoned them', they obviously don't recall the hundreds of thousands who died in sectarian fighting,and the fragile, corrupt, divisive government we left them with (after destroying their civil society) 
But if it makes you feel better, blame Obama, and tell yourself you weren't lied to and those mythical WMDs are in a cave in Syria somewhere.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe 1000's of warheads was a bit of hyperbole on my part but here's a quote from President Bush from Feb. 8, 2003-"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, ...". Hard to believe they could have used them if they weren't in some kind of warhead, artillery shell or some other weaponized form.
> 
> Now, tell me how leaving in place the very thing that was such a threat 12 years ago was great strategy and evidence of a successful mission.


Would those be the same wmds they just found in the 2 bunkers?

Jusy cracks me up, those of you who think Bush is the epitome of "Dummy" then atribute to him what all 15 intels-15 agencies-told the "Ds" during Clinton's term, as well as when Bush took office, and also the intel of Gr Britian, France, Germany, Russia, Israel.

Those still whining "Bush Lied" need to get over themselves, its beyond stupid. I guess as stupid as all the "Ds" who voted for the war-they must've been hoodwinked.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Would those be the same wmds they just found in the 2 bunkers?
> 
> Jusy cracks me up, those of you who think Bush is the epitome of "Dummy" then atribute to him what all 15 intels-15 agencies-told the "Ds" during Clinton's term, as well as when Bush took office, and also the intel of Gr Britian, France, Germany, Russia, Israel.
> 
> Those still whining "Bush Lied" need to get over themselves, its beyond stupid. I guess as stupid as all the "Ds" who voted for the war-they must've been hoodwinked.


It is beyond stupid ( to put it in your own words) not to know that he did lie.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Yep this is so Ironic of a topic. They just released the news that the taliban has found large hidden storages of WMD's in Iraq. Well I wouldnt say found more like remembered where saddam told them they were. lol But is the media blowing it up? No!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yep this is so Ironic of a topic. They just released the news that the taliban has found large hidden storages of WMD's in Iraq. Well I wouldnt say found more like remembered where saddam told them they were. lol But is the media blowing it up? No!


 Iraqi Taliban?? Where do you come up with this stuff??


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Would those be the same wmds they just found in the 2 bunkers?


 Nope. As has been explained many times, these were well known remnants of Saddams CW program in the 80's. This was a well known site, not producing anything past 1990,in fact much of Saddams chemical weapons were sent here post-1991 to be destroyed, and US chemical engineers started working with Iraqis in 2012 to dispose of it.
Is any of this sinking in?

Here is a CIA fact sheet detailing the site in question.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It is beyond stupid ( to put it in your own words) not to know that he did lie.


 Well said. 

A quick google search of this facility turns up a bunch of rightwing blog sites touting this as 'Saddams missing WMD arsenal' and saying its vindication for the invasion! How dumb are some people? Apparently its too much to ask they take the 5 minutes to do some actual research.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It is beyond stupid ( to put it in your own words) not to know that he did lie.


Who? The 15 agencies? All the EU countries agencies? All the "Ds"? How? Please explain. C'mon, man.
Even Bush is not smart ehuf to pull all that off.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Who? The 15 agencies? All the EU countries agencies? All the "Ds"? How? Please explain. C'mon, man.
> Even Bush is not smart ehuf to pull all that off.


I am sorry buy I don't understand how you could not know that The US occupied Iraq for quite a few years and did not find all those WMD's the entire time they were there. They of course did find and did know about the old munitions dumps in the article. The truth however would not allow them to keep going off on these ridiculous tangents.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I am sorry buy I don't understand how you could not know that The US occupied Iraq for quite a few years and did not find all those WMD's the entire time they were there. They of course did find and did know about the old munitions dumps in the article. The truth however would not allow them to keep going off on these ridiculous tangents.


You have to remember that when it comes to WMDs in Iraq and the threat they pose to the US truth and facts have never had much to do with the narrative.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

greg273 said:


> Iraqi Taliban?? Where do you come up with this stuff??


Did I ever say they were Iraqi taliban? No. Al-Qaida has been established in Iraq for years and several of their higher ups were under protection of Saddam. Zarqawi was medicaly treated and quarded by saddam for two months.

"Al-Qaida's presence in Iraq has grown since 9/11, including inside Baghdad. We know that Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi spent considerable time in Baghdad during 2002 under the protection of Saddam Hussein while recovering from a surgical procedure, and has a network of operatives in northern Iraq in an area under the control of Ansar al-Islam. This network has been working steadily to produce toxic substances which are ready for deployment, based on recent arrests in Europe. Zarqawi controls operations outside Iraq as well, as evidenced by the assassination of USAID representative to Jordan, Lawrence Foley, in which the perpetrators reported they were acting with support from Zarqawi. We know that neither Iraq nor al-Qaida would have any compunction about using WMD in terrorist attacks against civilians. Based on the weight of our current information, I believe that al-Qaida operatives inside Iraq have positioned themselves so that they could launch operations with little or no warning."

Carl W. Ford, Jr., MA, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research

Are you more informed on the situation than they are or are you just basing everything on Rachel Madcow and MSNBC?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Did I ever say they were Iraqi taliban? No. Al-Qaida has been established in Iraq for years and several of their higher ups were under protection of Saddam. Zarqawi was medicaly treated and quarded by saddam for two months.
> 
> "Al-Qaida's presence in Iraq has grown since 9/11, including inside Baghdad. We know that Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi spent considerable time in Baghdad during 2002 under the protection of Saddam Hussein while recovering from a surgical procedure, and has a network of operatives in northern Iraq in an area under the control of Ansar al-Islam. This network has been working steadily to produce toxic substances which are ready for deployment, based on recent arrests in Europe. Zarqawi controls operations outside Iraq as well, as evidenced by the assassination of USAID representative to Jordan, Lawrence Foley, in which the perpetrators reported they were acting with support from Zarqawi. We know that neither Iraq nor al-Qaida would have any compunction about using WMD in terrorist attacks against civilians. Based on the weight of our current information, I believe that al-Qaida operatives inside Iraq have positioned themselves so that they could launch operations with little or no warning."
> 
> ...


And if you'll do just a bit more research you'll find that the US military and others inside the Bush administration advocated for limited strikes against these terrorist camps and labs. Strikes that would have neutralized these threats but also have neutralized a major justification for invading Iraq. Once again, we know which policy prevailed and what it's outcome has been. We can only surmise that had a different policy been followed we might be in a better place today.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Amazing the way all this happened. Iraq was acknowledged by everyone to have chemical weapons and then poof they were gone. I guess all those fine fellows got religion or something and just got out of the business. Course they wouldn't move them or anything, just like they didn't fly the bulk of their air force to their old enemy Iran. What a convoluted path the leftists have to follow to hold on to their cherished ideas. Unicorn land again.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Leftist are the smartest people they know.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> Amazing the way all this happened. Iraq was acknowledged by everyone to have chemical weapons and then poof they were gone. I guess all those fine fellows got religion or something and just got out of the business. Course they wouldn't move them or anything, just like they didn't fly the bulk of their air force to their old enemy Iran. What a convoluted path the leftists have to follow to hold on to their cherished ideas. Unicorn land again.


All you have is supposition and rumor, no facts. The rights beloved Bush never found them so the aliens must have taken them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> Amazing the way all this happened. Iraq was acknowledged by everyone to have chemical weapons and then poof they were gone. I guess all those fine fellows got religion or something and just got out of the business. Course they wouldn't move them or anything, just like they didn't fly the bulk of their air force to their old enemy Iran. What a convoluted path the leftists have to follow to hold on to their cherished ideas. Unicorn land again.


So let's buy your premise that the intelligence that "everyone" believed was accurate. How effective was our invasion of Iraq from keeping them from the very hands we were afraid of? If they were indeed transported to Syria we seem to have invaded the wrong country to find them. If they were secreted somewhere else we did a pretty poor job of finding them. My issue isn't so much with our justification for invading Iraq as it is with our prosecution of the mission. If you want to continue to use finding and destroying these weapons as justification simply explain to me how that part of our mission was a success.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Did I ever say they were Iraqi taliban? No. Al-Qaida has been established in Iraq for years and several of their higher ups were under protection of Saddam.


 Actually, yes, you said the 'taliban found WMDs in Iraq', which is completely false... And the links between Saddam and al-queda were tenuous at best, and NO ONE in the intel community ever established that there was any sort of operational relationship between them. 
One thing is certain, al-queda, and every other militant kook in the region, flooded into Iraq after we took down Saddam. Good job Dubya! But don't worry, you can still blame Obama if it makes you feel better.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe 1000's of warheads was a bit of hyperbole on my part but here's a quote from President Bush from Feb. 8, 2003-"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, ...". Hard to believe they could have used them if they weren't in some kind of warhead, artillery shell or some other weaponized form.


A 55 gallon drum with a C4 charge under it will work. You can also drop those drums out of aircraft, as they did in the Iran-Iraq war. Or you can simply remove the explosive charge from a Scud missile and replace it with the equal weight of sawdust soaked with nerve agent. Delivering chemical doesn't require a lot of high tech.




mmoetc said:


> Now, tell me how leaving in place the very thing that was such a threat 12 years ago was great strategy and evidence of a successful mission.


Got me but its clearly there or everyone wouldn't have their knickers in a knot about the site being captured.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Seems it is YOU who doesn't have a 'great grasp of history'... The UN inspectors, in the months prior to the invasion, were given UNFETTERED access to wherever they wanted to go in Iraq, and were finding NOTHING.


Ok, I'm confused. . .if they found nothing then were did the chemical weapons everyone now agrees ARE in Iraq come from?




greg273 said:


> And you also don't seem to recall the many people saying the intel on Iraq was suspect, and those saying invasion was the wrong move, for exactly the reasons we are seeing now. And for those who say 'Iraq was great until Obama abandoned them', they obviously don't recall the hundreds of thousands who died in sectarian fighting,and the fragile, corrupt, divisive government we left them with (after destroying their civil society)
> But if it makes you feel better, blame Obama, and tell yourself you weren't lied to and those mythical WMDs are in a cave in Syria somewhere.


I blame everyone who has been involved since 1991. It was stupid to stop the attack after "100 hours" (Bush 41 and that congress). It was stupid to allow Iraq to flip the world the bird and violate the cease fire agreement time and time and time and time again for years and years (Clinton and that congress). It was stupid to resume hostilities in such a limited way (Bush 43 and that congress). It was stupid to not in an interim government as we did in post-WWII Germany, Italy and Japan (Bush 43 and that congress). It was stupid to not use massive force to support the Iraq government and to pull troops out before it was firmly in place (Obama and that congress).


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> A 55 gallon drum with a C4 charge under it will work. You can also drop those drums out of aircraft, as they did in the Iran-Iraq war. Or you can simply remove the explosive charge from a Scud missile and replace it with the equal weight of sawdust soaked with nerve agent. Delivering chemical doesn't require a lot of high tech.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only ones who seem to have their knickers in a knot appear to be those who are jumping up and down declaring that this bunker complex is evidence that Bush never misled the country as to the scope of the danger of WMDs in Iraq. 

Interesting that if these weapons could have been so easily used, were so readily available and permission was given by Saddam to use them, that they never were. 8 years of war with no compunction by the other side to not use every means available to them to harm US and government soldiers as well as those on the other end of the religous spectrum and nothing happened. Maybe the threat was just a bit overblown?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Ok so lets say this. Lets say even though there were wmd's, there were not any WMD's in Iraq. As we all know they had the plans, capabilities and materials to build many different types of WMD's (which they did build but for liberal understanding sake we will say they didnt). Should we have waited until they did make a nuke or any other form of wmd and use them on their people or another innocent country? Or should we do what we did and got a ruthless ruler out of power and save hundreds of thousands of lives? Keeping in mind all liberals want a world of peace and fairy tails where we hold hands and enjoy singalongs around the old oak tree. Which would be nice but in a world so full of evil is just a dream.

So question of the day. Did you support Saddam and his evil regime or do you support a world without such an evil dictator. Which world is better off? The one with or without him?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Ok so lets say this. Lets say even though there were wmd's, there were not any WMD's in Iraq. As we all know they had the plans, capabilities and materials to build many different types of WMD's (which they did build but for liberal understanding sake we will say they didnt). Should we have waited until they did make a nuke or any other form of wmd and use them on their people or another innocent country? Or should we do what we did and got a ruthless ruler out of power and save hundreds of thousands of lives? Keeping in mind all liberals want a world of peace and fairy tails where we hold hands and enjoy singalongs around the old oak tree. Which would be nice but in a world so full of evil is just a dream.
> 
> So question of the day. Did you support Saddam and his evil regime or do you support a world without such an evil dictator. Which world is better off? The one with or without him?


It's actually a fairly simple answer and one I've given before. The world is a better place without Saddam. 

Now answer me this. Could we and should we have had a better plan in place for what was to follow Saddam or was there nothing different that could have been done to remove him from power or contain his influence so that we didn't spend almost a trillion dollars( and counting), 4500+ American lives lost and countless others never to be the same just to end up where we're at today?


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> All you have is supposition and rumor, no facts. The rights beloved Bush never found them so the aliens must have taken them.


And all you have is your tired old Bush phobic garbage that you leftists keep spewing to distract from the incompetent jackass currently defiling the White House. Chamber pots make better presidents than leftists.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> So let's buy your premise that the intelligence that "everyone" believed was accurate. How effective was our invasion of Iraq from keeping them from the very hands we were afraid of? If they were indeed transported to Syria we seem to have invaded the wrong country to find them. If they were secreted somewhere else we did a pretty poor job of finding them. My issue isn't so much with our justification for invading Iraq as it is with our prosecution of the mission. If you want to continue to use finding and destroying these weapons as justification simply explain to me how that part of our mission was a success.


Actually I'll get on board with you here. I think the mission was in many ways poorly executed. There are lots of reasons for that, most of them to do with political correctness. They should have stomped Iraq flat and then gone into the Bekaa Valley just to make sure while severely damaging al-Assad in the process. I would have completely supported leaving the whole place smoking rubble myself and forget nation building. Course the Turks and a bunch of other people made all that very difficult.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> It's actually a fairly simple answer and one I've given before. The world is a better place without Saddam.
> 
> Now answer me this. Could we and should we have had a better plan in place for what was to follow Saddam or was there nothing different that could have been done to remove him from power or contain his influence so that we didn't spend almost a trillion dollars( and counting), 4500+ American lives lost and countless others never to be the same just to end up where we're at today?


No life ever lost is good. But D-Day was planned for months by some of the greatest military minds ever! And we lost at least double that amount of Americans and even more allied forces. Infact every war this nation has ever been in has cost as many as 20 times the amount we have lost in this war on terror. Sounds like pretty good planning to me. And war cost money. Which the dems also supported. Did we take oil or land? No. We went to free a nation. And its been obamas handling of it over the last 8 years that has let them regain power. Why? Because of instead of doing the right thing over there he wanted political party points and said we are out of there. Well gues what? We are going right back in. Bush had them confused and on the run. obama gave them order.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Bush had them confused and on the run. obama gave them order.


 If you don't get it by now, you never will. Iraq was a complete mess before Obama pulled troops out. Its an even bigger mess now, but chalk that up to divisive Iraqis. Sure, we could still be there, still dying for Iraqis, but the American people had enough. 
When we went in to Iraq in 03, the neocons were telling everyone this wouldn't cost us a dime, it would be wrapped up in a year, and it would spread democracy through the middle east. Did any of that come true?? Face it, you were LIED to would-be empire makers. They wanted their own version of the 'Thousand year Reich', (ie, the 'New American Century') that ended up lasting about 2 years. 
You can cry about the 'brutal dictator', but everyone knows that Saddam was a monster of our own creation, another example of rightwing meddling that blew up in our face.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Glade Runner said:


> Actually I'll get on board with you here. I think the mission was in many ways poorly executed. There are lots of reasons for that, most of them to do with political correctness. They should have stomped Iraq flat and then gone into the Bekaa Valley just to make sure while severely damaging al-Assad in the process. I would have completely supported leaving the whole place smoking rubble myself and forget nation building. Course the Turks and a bunch of other people made all that very difficult.


 You're a bit confused, the mission was not to 'stomp Iraq flat', it was supposedly to 'disarm the dictator', 'regime change', and 'liberation'. The US military is far better at waging war than installing functioning civilian governments. And the Bushies were warned about that, but they completely ignored the council of wiser men than them. 
By the way, YOUR plan to 'level the place' would have led to more problems than what is there now.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> And all you have is your tired old Bush phobic garbage that you leftists keep spewing to distract from the incompetent jackass currently defiling the White House. Chamber pots make better presidents than leftists.


Mister did you see the title of this thread? It is about Cheny not Obama but the righties sure want to move it that way.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> No life ever lost is good. But D-Day was planned for months by some of the greatest military minds ever! And we lost at least double that amount of Americans and even more allied forces. Infact every war this nation has ever been in has cost as many as 20 times the amount we have lost in this war on terror. Sounds like pretty good planning to me. And war cost money. Which the dems also supported. Did we take oil or land? No. We went to free a nation. And its been obamas handling of it over the last 8 years that has let them regain power. Why? Because of instead of doing the right thing over there he wanted political party points and said we are out of there. Well gues what? We are going right back in. Bush had them confused and on the run. obama gave them order.


Even given the fact that Obama's only been in charge 5 1/2 years, not 8, and that he who shall not be blamed negotiated and signed the agreement that outlined our withdrawal from Iraq, comparing the outcome of the Iraqi invasion favorably to that of what occurred on D-day may be one of the most laugh out loud things I have read on these pages. Maybe we should just judge everything based on Reagan's Grenada adventure.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

It is hilarious to me that the people whining about the other side lacking logic couldn't follow a logical line of thought if it hit them upside the head with a 2x4. 

The Right's very own Megyn Kelly nailed it and it is just killing Conservatives that they can't dance their way out of this no matter how hard they try. 



> "Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir. You said there was no doubt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the insurgency was in its last throes back in 2005, and you said that after our intervention, extremists would have to 'rethink their strategy of jihad.' Now, with almost a trillion dollars spent there, with almost 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say _you_ were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?"


Mr. Cheney was so flustered he couldn't even get her name right to respond.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

greg273 said:


> You're a bit confused, the mission was not to 'stomp Iraq flat', it was supposedly to 'disarm the dictator', 'regime change', and 'liberation'. The US military is far better at waging war than installing functioning civilian governments. And the Bushies were warned about that, but they completely ignored the council of wiser men than them.
> By the way, YOUR plan to 'level the place' would have led to more problems than what is there now.


I'm not confused at all but then, you leftists live in a cloud so I'm sure that's difficult for you to recognize.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The only ones who seem to have their knickers in a knot appear to be those who are jumping up and down declaring that this bunker complex is evidence that Bush never misled the country as to the scope of the danger of WMDs in Iraq.


No, it was the press who started screaming about how the rebels had taken control of the Iraq chemical weapons. Then when people questioned about how was that possible when the left said there were no chemical weapons there the focus suddenly changed to how these chemical weapons aren't really chemical weapons therefore when Bush said there were chemical weapons there and Iraq was working on bring back their chemical weapons capability it was a lie. 




mmoetc said:


> Interesting that if these weapons could have been so easily used, were so readily available and permission was given by Saddam to use them, that they never were.


That's because his generals were not as crazy as he was and knew they didn't have a chance of winning and didn't want to wind up swinging from a rope after a quick Nuremberg type war crimes trial. If you study some history you will find near the end of the war a lot of German commanders ignored some of the crazier orders coming from Hitler. 




mmoetc said:


> 8 years of war with no compunction by the other side to not use every means available to them to harm US and government soldiers as well as those on the other end of the religous spectrum and nothing happened. Maybe the threat was just a bit overblown?


How many severe car wrecks have you been in? For the vast majority of people the answer is zero. Therefore wouldn't you say that the threat is "just a bit overblown" and wearing a seatbelt stupid? Or would you say even though the threat isn't that large the prudent thing to do is wear your seatbelt? 

Its my understanding this site has been under control of the, mostly, stable government since the US pulled back. Now its under control of people who think that if you don't convert you should be killed and dying while killing unbelievers is a ticket right to Heaven. What's 30-60 seconds of muscle spasms and pain caused by blowing up a drum full of nerve agent in the back of a truck when compared to that?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It's actually a fairly simple answer and one I've given before. The world is a better place without Saddam.
> 
> Now answer me this. Could we and should we have had a better plan in place for what was to follow Saddam or was there nothing different that could have been done to remove him from power or contain his influence so that we didn't spend almost a trillion dollars( and counting), 4500+ American lives lost and countless others never to be the same just to end up where we're at today?


Sure, we could have found the gonads to do fight an all out war in '91, install a US controlled interim government (ala post WWII Germany and Japan) until Iraq was stable and recovered enough to handle its own problems. Then let the world know if you screwed with Iraq the US would consider that screwing with it and would react swiftly and violently.

But in the age of 'microwave' or 'TV movie' wars where people want it over fast, wrapped up in a bow and w/o any casualties on either side the thought of actually fighting a all out war makes people, politicians especially, lose control of their bladders and bowels.

In WWII if a unit came under fire from a sniper it would call in an artillery or air strike. If that strike took out half, or even an entire, town "well thems the breaks". That significantly reduces the number of casualties you get from snipers because it reduces the number of troops exposed to him. Do that today and you'd wind up facing a war crimes trial because you used too much force and caused too much collateral damage.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> You're a bit confused, the mission was not to 'stomp Iraq flat', it was supposedly to 'disarm the dictator', 'regime change', and 'liberation'.


Hence the current problems. As said by another:

_That's how war is fought, in case any of you have foolish ideas to the contrary. You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back._




greg273 said:


> The US military is far better at waging war than installing functioning civilian governments.


Really? It seems the three times we have done it after winning it worked out fairly well. Unless you don't consider Germany, Japan and Italy having functioning civilian governments. Of course I'm not 100% sure about Italy. . .




greg273 said:


> By the way, YOUR plan to 'level the place' would have led to more problems than what is there now.


I think history shows otherwise. Notice how there were no terrorist attacks when Saddam was in power? Notice how there are no terrorist attacks in Iran? Why? Because the people who would do such thing knew at doing so would have resulted in a swift and violent reaction. You don't have to use the same techniques as Saddam or the ayatollahs but having a policy of swift and violent reaction to violent actions tends to result in fewer and fewer of those violent actions. And yes I know about the USSR and Afghanistan but there are differences in Iraq.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> It is hilarious to me that the people whining about the other side lacking logic couldn't follow a logical line of thought if it hit them upside the head with a 2x4.
> 
> The Right's very own Megyn Kelly nailed it and it is just killing Conservatives that they can't dance their way out of this no matter how hard they try.
> 
> ...



Let's see. Saddam used chemical weapons and we now know there are STILL said weapons in Iraq. So he got that right.

If you dig deep enough you can still find videos online of Iraqi people cheering the fact that US troops had freed them from Saddam. You might remember the one when cheering crowds helped by American troops pulled down the giant statue of Saddam. So it seems he got that right.

IIRC in 2005 Iraq was fairly stable with very few insurgent attacks. Its only after the 2008 election that things started going sideways. So it seems he got that one right too. Think if it like being really sick and your doctor tells you that you are on the road to recovery so you stop taking your meds and get sick again. Was the doc wrong at the time?

Ok he blew it on the jihad thing but trying to figure out what a nutcase is going to do is a crap shoot.

Seems he got three out of four right. That's down right outstanding for a politician.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Let's see. Saddam used chemical weapons and we now know there are STILL said weapons in Iraq. So he got that right.
> 
> If you dig deep enough you can still find videos online of Iraqi people cheering the fact that US troops had freed them from Saddam. You might remember the one when cheering crowds helped by American troops pulled down the giant statue of Saddam. So it seems he got that right.
> 
> ...


Curious that we had to have a "surge" of troops back into Iraq, particularly the Baghdad area and Anbar province because things were so stable and peaceful in 2007. You know, some four years after major combat operations were declared over and victory was celebrated on the deck of an aircraft carrier.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Bush did lie. He lied that they were there at the time he invaded. There were there previously but not then.


Please show evidence of this.

This has probably already been asked but doesn't that lead one to the conclusion that they were moved out of the country before the US invaded as many have stated...and then moved back in after we left... as many of us figured would happen?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> Please show evidence of this.
> 
> This has probably already been asked but doesn't that lead one to the conclusion that they were moved out of the country before the US invaded as many have stated...and then moved back in after we left... as many of us figured would happen?


How about you prove it happened like you say. Otherwise I could say they moved them to the moon and then moved them back.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

painterswife said:


> How about you prove it happened like you say. Otherwise I could say they moved them to the moon and then moved them back.


Im simply asking you to back up your assertion with evidence. I dont think that is too much to ask, do you?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> Im simply asking you to back up your assertion with evidence. I dont think that is too much to ask, do you?


Bush could not back up his assertions. He found no proof and he had a much greater ability to do that than I. How about you ask him to back up his first.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Bush could not back up his assertions. He found no proof and he had a much greater ability to do that than I. How about you ask him to back up his first.


No proof there were WMDs?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ongress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> No proof there were WMDs?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ongress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html


You might want to read this thread. We already debunked those claims.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...i-thought-saddam-had-no-chemical-weapons.html


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Sorry, no can do. Im not going to PM someone to request to be a part of political discussion.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lazaryss said:


> Sorry, no can do. Im not going to PM someone to request to be a part of political discussion.


Please do..


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Please do..


While I very much enjoy political discussions, I think that filing the politics section under private and making it to where you had to request to join was something that bothered me and still does. I think it is something that is extremely vital to homesteading and homesteaders and people should be able to see the discussions and post at their leisure without having to ask if they can join the private club.

I know it sounds silly, but its a stance I took when it happened and I am currently unwilling to change that stance.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lazaryss said:


> While I very much enjoy political discussions, I think that filing the politics section under private and making it to where you had to request to join was something that bothered me and still does. I think it is something that is extremely vital to homesteading and homesteaders and people should be able to see the discussions and post at their leisure without having to ask if they can join the private club.
> 
> I know it sounds silly, but its a stance I took when it happened and I am currently unwilling to change that stance.


It gets pretty rough in there. I think the reason you have to take that extra steps is to show you really want to sign up for a bloody nose and a black eye. Punches are thrown freely.

Segregating it gives us a little latitude that some might find offensive. Gotta have a thick skin.

I am surprised the moderators have moved some of these threads, as they are clearly political.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Agreed. I used to post there pretty often. I enjoyed the community and the fact that we could have heated discussions so long as people were at least respectful. But when they changed it to private..... it just bothered me


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Lazaryss said:


> While I very much enjoy political discussions, I think that filing the politics section under private and making it to where you had to request to join was something that bothered me and still does. I think it is something that is extremely vital to homesteading and homesteaders and people should be able to see the discussions and post at their leisure without having to ask if they can join the private club.
> 
> I know it sounds silly, but its a stance I took when it happened and I am currently unwilling to change that stance.


I'm not trying to convince you to change your stance, because you're really not missing much, but I look at it not as asking the moderators for permission to join, but as me giving them permission to show it to me.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> I'm not trying to convince you to change your stance, because you're really not missing much, but I look at it not as asking the moderators for permission to join, but as me giving them permission to show it to me.


This. They closed it off because people were asking to not have to see it. They didn't do it because any of the members asked for a private club.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You might want to read this thread. We already debunked those claims.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...i-thought-saddam-had-no-chemical-weapons.html


No you think you have. The fact is that as of last week there were chemical agent inside Iraq. The fact is you don't need a high tech device to deliver chemical weapons. The fact is chemical weapons don't "go bad". In the 90s the US had agents which had been manufactured in the 50s and it still capable of killing. I don't know if it has been destroyed by now but if not exposure to it would kill you in seconds today just like it would in the 50s. The fact is just because you want to claim the chemical agents which have been reported are useless doesn't make it so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> No you think you have. The fact is that as of last week there were chemical agent inside Iraq. The fact is you don't need a high tech device to deliver chemical weapons. The fact is chemical weapons don't "go bad". In the 90s the US had agents which had been manufactured in the 50s and it still capable of killing. I don't know if it has been destroyed by now but if not exposure to it would kill you in seconds today just like it would in the 50s. The fact is just because you want to claim the chemical agents which have been reported are useless doesn't make it so.


Riding that dead horse gets you no where.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> No you think you have. The fact is that as of last week there were chemical agent inside Iraq. The fact is you don't need a high tech device to deliver chemical weapons. The fact is chemical weapons don't "go bad". In the 90s the US had agents which had been manufactured in the 50s and it still capable of killing. I don't know if it has been destroyed by now but if not exposure to it would kill you in seconds today just like it would in the 50s. The fact is just because you want to claim the chemical agents which have been reported are useless doesn't make it so.


The fact is that the rationale wasn't just that old weapons existed, but that an ongoing program producing new weapons was in place and that there was an urgent danger that said weapons would be acquired by terrorist organizations and used against the United States. None of those allegations have stood up to scrutiny. If it makes you feel better about the entire Iraq escapade to use this weapons cache, which was always known about, as justification I'll leave you to it. I'll continue to criticize the decision making process that led us to war, and the decisions that screwed that war up so royally.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> How about you prove it happened like you say. Otherwise I could say they moved them to the moon and then moved them back.


Well that does sound like something you'd say...
So, you tell us, where were they? All used up on the Kurds? 

I really think the WMD thing is so amusing b/c there were how many other reasons for going in there? Violation of cease fire. Violation of air space. Violated of how many UN rules?

But NOOOoooo. Just b/c one thing doesn't fit...exactly...just amusing that leftists can focus on this yet cannot focus on the "HUNDREDS" of lies this admin tells as well as "HUNDREDS" of illegal/inept activities.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Bush could not back up his assertions. He found no proof and he had a much greater ability to do that than I. How about you ask him to back up his first.


Just where do you get this?
15 intels said there were WMDs.
Italy, France, Gr Britain, Germany's intel said there were WMDs. Bush did not invent the intel.
Did "Ds" oppose? Who voted for the war?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I'm not trying to convince you to change your stance, because you're really not missing much, but I look at it not as asking the moderators for permission to join, but as me giving them permission to show it to me.


Ah great rational!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> No, it was the press who started screaming about how the rebels had taken control of the Iraq chemical weapons. Then when people questioned about how was that possible when the left said there were no chemical weapons there the focus suddenly changed to how these chemical weapons aren't really chemical weapons therefore when Bush said there were chemical weapons there and Iraq was working on bring back their chemical weapons capability it was a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know how crazy the Iraqi generals were. I do know that no WMDs were used during the invasion contrary to dire warnings beforehand. Seem like a swing and miss to me.

I've been in a couple of what I'd call severe car wrecks. I think its prudent for myself and others to wear safety belts and for cars to be equipped with other safety devices. I don't think it prudent or rational for the government to arbitrarily remove by force everyone I would consider a bad driver from the roads. 

We controlled the country for 5 years of the administration that shall not be named. For five years, these weapons that were such a threat say there largely undealt with hoping that peace and stability would always reign and rational people would always be in control of an area not known for its rationality. And you accuse the left of believing in unicorns?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Hence the current problems. As said by another:
> 
> _That's how war is fought, in case any of you have foolish ideas to the contrary. You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to
> 
> ...


_

Since there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq, nor were there any attacks directed at the US from groups with ties to the Iraqi government logic would say that invasion was exactly the wrong policy. After all, attacks in Iraq only peaked after we arrived and many of the attacks and plots directed at us since have direct links to our policy there. By your standards we should be actively supporting the Ayatollahs in Iran, right?_


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Riding that dead horse gets you no where.


Putting the facts out there will allow people to know the truth instead of propaganda. If you have any data to discredit what I stated feel free to post it. 

Example do you have any data which shows that chemical weapons degrade to the point of being safe?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The fact is that the rationale wasn't just that old weapons existed, but that an ongoing program producing new weapons was in place and that there was an urgent danger that said weapons would be acquired by terrorist organizations and used against the United States. None of those allegations have stood up to scrutiny.


If you have the chemical agents it takes VERY LITTLE time and effort to weaponize it. 




mmoetc said:


> If it makes you feel better about the entire Iraq escapade to use this weapons cache, which was always known about, as justification I'll leave you to it. I'll continue to criticize the decision making process that led us to war, and the decisions that screwed that war up so royally.


The only thing I need to 'justify' it is the fact Iraq failed to live up to the cease fire agreement they signed in 91. The minute that happened we should have restarted hostilities, not wait for over 10 years.

I have to point out when people say Bush lied about chemical weapons they are wrong. The agents were there and it is easy to combine the agents with the delivery system. When you have a nut in power who has used chemical weapons before, has invaded TWO neighboring nations, has violated a cease fire agreement and is now in danger of losing his power you have a very dangerous combination. 

I'll criticize how the pols screwed up by not allowing those who know how wars should be fought to run one. Everyone who has been in congress and the White House since 1991 should be ashamed of themselves and their actions.

Using halfway measures with a bully only makes him a greater danger, trying to stop one with agreements and other pieces of paper is a waste of time. How many women have been killed by dangerous men even though there was a court issued RO requiring those men to stay away from them?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I don't know how crazy the Iraqi generals were. I do know that no WMDs were used during the invasion contrary to dire warnings beforehand. Seem like a swing and miss to me.


We were also warned that Iraq had something like the 6 largest military in the world but we routed them in 100 hours (as the PR says) does that mean that the intel on the size of the Iraq military was wrong?

Just because the weapons were not used doesn't mean they weren't there. 




mmoetc said:


> We controlled the country for 5 years of the administration that shall not be named. For five years, these weapons that were such a threat say there largely undealt with hoping that peace and stability would always reign and rational people would always be in control of an area not known for its rationality. And you accuse the left of believing in unicorns?


I have no idea why anyone would leave chemical agents in such an unstable area. To me its like leaving gasoline soaked rags and matches around a group of 8 year old boys, at some point something bad is going to happen. 

There's more than enough blame to spread around. Why didn't Bush 41 remove them? Why didn't Clinton during his 8 years? Why didn't Bush 43 do it in his two terms? Why didn't Obama handle it before now? Its like the burning O rings in the shuttle boosters. There were people ringing the warning bells but no one in power was willing to do anything about it because it wasn't causing a problem for them, yet. And we all know what happened when that problem was ignored.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Since there were no terrorist attacks in Iraq, nor were there any attacks directed at the US from groups with ties to the Iraqi government logic would say that invasion was exactly the wrong policy. After all, attacks in Iraq only peaked after we arrived and many of the attacks and plots directed at us since have direct links to our policy there.


Only if you ignore the repeated violations of the cease fire agreement.




mmoetc said:


> By your standards we should be actively supporting the Ayatollahs in Iran, right?


Back in the 80s I supported just that. I was already pointing out how dangerous Iraq/Saddam was and trying to get the US to supply Iran AND Iraq with weapons. The longer they fought each other the better it was for the US.

To be honest with you I'm starting to think the same thing today. We should arm both sides and let them keep right on killing each other so they have less time to try to kill us.


----------

