Wow...Cheney explains why invading Iraq is a bad idea.

[Galactic Gigolo]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

The majority of the people did. I don't think anybody believed the little violent sects who were squabbling over the crumbs left over from Saddam's table would love us. Anybody who did is an idiot.

Cheney states in the video that all around Iraq are potential schisms to occur. As for whether the people would love us, I seem to remember plenty of people laughing at the 'greeted as liberators' statement when it was made.

What exactly do you think major combat operations are? We defeated their military and toppled their government. That was major combat operations. And it was over in a few weeks. Playing at police isn't major combat operations.

And how many more people have died policing the country than they did removing Saddam? Bush even said in the speech that U.S. had 'prevailed.' Lo and behold on that one.

I don't remember hearing anybody claim that it would.

Wolfowitz

I'm still not clear on what "dishonesty" you're talking about. He said 13 years ago that it would be a hard road if we invaded Iraq, and he was right. He didn't feel like it was worth it in 1994, and he felt differently in 2003.

He said it would be a quagmire in 1994 and then he and the administration he is a part of painted a rosy picture of the war to come in order to sway people to support it. That = dishonest

[RMNIXON]

REPOST of the VP Al Gore Statements we can all ignor:



YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

REPOST of the VP Al Gore Statements we can all ignor:



YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Who cares what he has to say? You guys can't say he's full of shit when talking about global warming and he's acceptable to listen to when talking about Iraq.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Who cares what he has to say? You guys can't say he's full of shit when talking about global warming and he's acceptable to listen to when talking about Iraq.

Likewise, you can't claim that only Bush sackriders think invading Iraq was necessary and is going well, then ignore everything Clinton and Gore and Albright said.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Likewise, you can't claim that only Bush sackriders think invading Iraq was necessary and is going well, then ignore everything Clinton and Gore and Albright said.

It may or may not have been necessary but the reasoning given could have been fleshed out better instead of rushing in with no plan, no evidence of WMDs, no real uncooperation from Saddam. Clinton, Gore and Albright were given what we now know was faulty intelligence. So they were wrong too. I am not ignoring their comments...they were just as wrong as the rest of the bozos. It was not necessary to invade Iraq...ESPECIALLY with a half cocked plan of what to do afterwards. This thread is specifically about Cheney and crew KNOWING this and still misleading us and Congress in order to get his way.

[SICKGUY]

the fact that he can talk in such detail about why an invasion would not work makes me think more than ever that this war has nothing to do with terror, and everything to do with making money.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It may or may not have been necessary but the reasoning given could have been fleshed out better instead of rushing in with no plan,

Except for "Defeat army, topple government, install new constitutional government, hold free elections", of course.

no evidence of WMDs,

Except 2 tons of enriched uranium, attempts to procure more, a uranium enrichment facility, 380 tons of explosives commonly used in manufacture of nuclear warheads, chemical and biological facilities, and canisters of cyanide and sarin gases, of course.

no real uncooperation from Saddam.

Except the 6 years' worth of timeline excerpts I posted.

Clinton, Gore and Albright were given what we now know was faulty intelligence. So they were wrong too. I am not ignoring their comments...they were just as wrong as the rest of the bozos. It was not necessary to invade Iraq...ESPECIALLY with a half cocked plan of what to do afterwards. This thread is specifically about Cheney and crew KNOWING this and still misleading us and Congress in order to get his way.

I still love how you guys are still crying about how the retarded monkey fooled you all into getting into a war you didn't want. That joke just never gets old.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Except for "Defeat army, topple government, install new constitutional government, hold free elections", of course.

Ok, we're done then? Let's leave...

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Except 2 tons of enriched uranium, attempts to procure more, a uranium enrichment facility, 380 tons of explosives commonly used in manufacture of nuclear warheads, chemical and biological facilities, and canisters of cyanide and sarin gases, of course.

Ok, first off, there was no sarin gas. Second, even if I agree he had "2 tons of enriched uranium, a uranium enrichment facility, 380 tons of explosives" those ALL can be used to many different things. I don't believe he had any of this though. He had chemical and biological facilities and used chemical weapons before...the stuff we gave to him. He has NOTHING that wasn't out of date and useless. Cyanide has many different uses...not just military.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Except the 6 years' worth of timeline excerpts I posted.

Which I addressed and you didn't respond to with anything refuting my comments.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I still love how you guys are still crying about how the retarded monkey fooled you all into getting into a war you didn't want. That joke just never gets old.

What? It was more than Bush...as I've said before...probably in this thread.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Second, even if I agree he had "2 tons of enriched uranium, a uranium enrichment facility, 380 tons of explosives" those ALL can be used to many different things. I don't believe he had any of this though.

Of course you don't.

But let's say for the sake of argument that he did.

If I'm wearing an apron, mixing a cake pan full of flour, eggs, sugar, and milk, next to an oven preheated to 350°, all oof which can be used for different things, wouldn't it be reasonable to think maybe I was making a cake?



What the fuck has happened to common sense?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

If I'm wearing an apron, mixing a cake pan full of flour, eggs, sugar, and milk, next to an oven preheated to 350°, all oof which can be used for different things, wouldn't it be reasonable to think maybe I was making a cake?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Of course you don't.

But let's say for the sake of argument that he did.

If I'm wearing an apron, mixing a cake pan full of flour, eggs, sugar, and milk, next to an oven preheated to 350°, all oof which can be used for different things, wouldn't it be reasonable to think maybe I was making a cake?



What the fuck has happened to common sense?

Ok, I'll ask that if you're going to hold a decent conversation, stop picking and choosing which of my responses to address. Include everything in the rebuttal. I'd appreciated it.

Addressing what you said, you have provided absolutely nothing to back up your assertions of what Saddam had. You haven't provided ANY evidence of this so called "oven" either. It's been attempted in the past, but everything that the Right has come up with has been refuted by actual fact.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Except 2 tons of enriched uranium, attempts to procure more, a uranium enrichment facility, 380 tons of explosives commonly used in manufacture of nuclear warheads, chemical and biological facilities, and canisters of cyanide and sarin gases, of course.

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

FOXNews.com - Report: No Iraq WMDs Made After '91 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

[Scrum]

And here's the report if anyone feels like a bit of light reading.

Duelfer (CIA) Report on Iraq WMD

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by P/N

LMAO - you gave me a negative feedback of "unconstructive" for laughing at Thorgrim for defending Saddam, then you turn around and defend him too? What is it with the leftwaffe on this site (not that I'm saying you belong to the leftwaffe, because that would be an infraction)? When they can't debate an issue with facts, just feelings, they give you negative feedback. What a fucking pathetic excuse for debate.

I stand by my assertion that you were being unconstructive.
"LOLz you are defending Saddam" as a response to a legit argument, there is a reason many of us left . I also see it as part of a larger problem of people trying to dismiss arguments simply by questioning the patriotism or allegiances of the poster.

[P/N]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I stand by my assertion that you were being unconstructive.
"LOLz you are defending Saddam" as a response to a legit argument, there is a reason many of us left . I also see it as part of a larger problem of people trying to dismiss arguments simply by questioning the patriotism or allegiances of the poster.

When you ignore the facts, as you have, you aren't posing a legitimate argument. Saddam had no grounds to stand on, nor be defended. I think it's funny that Thorgrim still defends him to this very day. I'm not sure who you are talking to, but I have never questioned the patriotism or allegiance of yourself or anyone else on this board. If you can find where I have, please provide proof. If not, then maybe you should lay off with the personal attacks seeing how this thread was dead for almost 5 days before you responded by attacking me personally.