Question for Iraq war supporters

[RetiredGySgt]

You really are a piece of work. If a neo-con posted anything at all, you would not question it. As soon a s a liberal does, you have to insist on proof. Total double standard.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"

The weapons caches and programs were destroyed by weapons inspectors and our economic sanctions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/ No evidence to support this, your news story is not proof, further IF they were all destroyed as you claim, why as Blix still in Iraq and demanding more time to finish his inspections? Why did Blix report to the UN he had NOT found all the materials and was being thwarted still By Iraq?

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

How does this fit when Saudi Arabia, our biggest Middle East Ally is far worse to their citizens than Iraq? Saudi Arabia even trafficks in human slavery:
http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/saudi/
Your attempt to divert the charge to another Country does not even address the charge at ALL. In fact I would say you agree the charge is true and instead are trying to claim we should do something somewhere else.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

When? When did this happen after Desert Storm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Provide us with a timeline required by the resolution. It States a fact, you must disprove the fact, which can not be done.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

If we attempt or succeed to assassinate foreign leaders throughout the world, and that is okay, we have no room to not allow retaliative actions. We must first stop our wayward foreign policies and intelligence agencies who cause more problems than they solve. We are constantly caught in blow back, 9/11 being the most intense.

Opinion again, provide evidence that the above reason listed for the resolution was untrue, a lie or made up. Your opinion as to what we may or may not have done is irrelevant.

Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

There are al Qaeda operatives in America, should we attack ourselves? There are al Qaeda operatives in Israel, should we invade and occupy Israel?
There are al Qaeda operatives and financiers in Saudi Arabia, should we attack and occupy Saudi Arabia? Well, yes, we should do that.

Once again you fail to address the charge, rather you try to divert the conversation in another direction. Proof the charge made is untrue or a lie.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

There is no proof that Saddam ever harbored any terrorist organization. That burden of proof is on you.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E3DE1F31F93AA35752C0A9629C8B63
A list has been provided on more than one occasion of the known terrorists living in Iraq, further Iraq provided money to families of Suicide bombers, your claim is ridiculous on its face.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Refusing to comply with UN directives does not authorize any one country, the US included, to attack that country in non-compliance. Preemptive strikes can now be justified by North Korea, China, Russia and any terrorist group. The logic behind a pre-empitive strike is hubris and hegemony at it's worst, and sets a dangerous precedent.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Diplomatic and economic means should have been used and not aggression. Now we will be bogged down in a quagmire worse than Vietnam.

And here is a couple of nice links in case you want to get a better sense of what I am talking about.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0919-14.htm
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/10/03_kucinich_vote-no.htm

And you completely ignored the last reason of the resolution. Linking to peace sites is not proof of anything.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are a waste of time. You asked me to provide proof and I linked proof to my post. You are either real dumb or a complete asshole. I believe either one or both is quite possible.

You are not debating, your are just being argumentative.

Discussion over. Let us know when you have something intelligent to add. We might be retired by then, but we will wait for you.

Let us know when you can provide actual evidence your claims are true. Now you could do as maineman has in the past and fall back on " its my opinion, I don't need proof"

 

[Annie]

Yes I do. But again, it is not my links or my contentions but the fact that a liberal said it. If Bush said it you would take it as gold and find a way to forgive. But if one of the questioners states anything opposite of the propagandist views, you begin the character assassinations and belittling any and all evidence.

One of the problems is that any damning evidence against the Bush Administration, our military and intelligence communities are deemed classified and unattainable. Outside sources like the BBC and the UN are demonized as inaccurate at best and anti-American at worst.

The media outlets like FoxNews, network news and even CNN and MSNBC only continue the messages spewed out by the Pentagon, the White House and countless pundits - all of whom are corrupt and in the pocket of several industry lobbies.

True debate and discourse is dead. You people cling to what the administration tells you as absolute truth and infallible and at the same time attack anyone who looks at other evidence or questions the validity of the status quo.

What is it that you are afraid of knowing?

I disagree, I've had lots of discussions with Maineman, Paulitics, Jillian, hardly rightwing.

 

[maineman]

Let us know when you can provide actual evidence your claims are true. Now you could do as maineman has in the past and fall back on " its my opinion, I don't need proof"

kinda like YOU do when I ask you to provide PROOF that Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER or that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury?

 

[Annie]

kinda like YOU do when I ask you to provide PROOF that Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER or that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury?

and you insist on clarity of terms, sort of like I was asking about TM.

 

[maineman]

and you insist on clarity of terms, sort of like I was asking about TM.

I don't INSIST on anything. This is a message board where people express their opinions.

For example: it is my opinion that Bush lied to us about WMD's...and he lied in that he purposely conveyed absolute certainty when none actually existed.

It is my opinion that Cheney tried hard to link Saddam to 9/11 by discussing a czech intelligence report that he claimed had been confirmed, that had Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in the months BEFORE 9/11.

How can I PROVE those assertions? I can only show lots of intelligence estimates and opinions from analysts that state that they had doubts..that all of their information about Saddam was delivered with caveats and qualifiers.... what else is really needed to prove that Bush KNEW that there was doubt and decided to claim there was none? What else do I need, beyond the transcript of Cheney talking about the "pretty much confirmed" intell report about Atta and Iraqi intelligence to PROVE that Cheney was trying to make the connection between Saddam and 9/11?

They are my opinions...much like RGS (that coward hiding behind your skirts) has HIS opinions that Ted Kennedy is a murderer.... although mine are a lot more plausible!

 

[Annie]

I don't INSIST on anything. This is a message board where people express their opinions.

For example: it is my opinion that Bush lied to us about WMD's...and he lied in that he purposely conveyed absolute certainty when none actually existed.

It is my opinion that Cheney tried hard to link Saddam to 9/11 by discussing a czech intelligence report that he claimed had been confirmed, that had Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in the months BEFORE 9/11.

How can I PROVE those assertions? I can only show lots of intelligence estimates and opinions from analysts that state that they had doubts..that all of their information about Saddam was delivered with caveats and qualifiers.... what else is really needed to prove that Bush KNEW that there was doubt and decided to claim there was none? What else do I need, beyond the transcript of Cheney talking about the "pretty much confirmed" intell report about Atta and Iraqi intelligence to PROVE that Cheney was trying to make the connection between Saddam and 9/11?

They are my opinions...much like RGS (that coward hiding behind your skirts) has HIS opinions that Ted Kennedy is a murderer.... although mine are a lot more plausible!

I'm wearing jeans.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Let us know when you can provide actual evidence your claims are true. Now you could do as maineman has in the past and fall back on " its my opinion, I don't need proof"

Do you ever get sick of defending your hero, Mr. 30% approval rating?

BushCo explicitly and repeatedly linked Saddam to Al Qaeda, made statements that it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence, repeated the words 9/11 and Iraq over and over and over in every speech, claimed Iraq was the "geographic base" of those have have been attacking us "particularly on 9/11", and repeatedly claimed Saddam was an "ally" of al qaeda. All of these statements were either false at best, or outright lies at worst.

And the rightwing media (and probably you too) carried bush's water in 2002/03, repeatedly linking al qaeda to saddam and 9/11.


There was a concerted effort by BushCo, you, and the lying rightwing media to link iraq to 9/11 and to al qaeda. It's clear to everyone who isn't drunk on bush worship.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

kinda like YOU do when I ask you to provide PROOF that Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER or that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury?

LOL, you know as well as I do that Kennedy is directly responsible for the death of that girl and if he were not a kennedy he would have been tried and convicted of killing her. HE fled the scene and hid out for hours to sober up before even reporting it.

As for Clinton he ADMITTED he lied to a sitting Judge UNDER oath, I suggest you read the definition of Perjury.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm wearing jeans.

Maineman has one set of standards for his party and those that agree with it and another for everyone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL, you know as well as I do that Kennedy is directly responsible for the death of that girl and if he were not a kennedy he would have been tried and convicted of killing her. HE fled the scene and hid out for hours to sober up before even reporting it.
As for Clinton he ADMITTED he lied to a sitting Judge UNDER oath, I suggest you read the definition of Perjury.

You know how these partisan bigots work:
If its a Dem, the accusation has to be proven in court; if its a Republican, the accusation alone is proof enough.

 

[Paulie]

Maineman has one set of standards for his party and those that agree with it and another for everyone else.

You don't?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You don't?

No I do not. I respond to stupidity no matter what "party" they belong to. You are of course aware that several of the supposed Conservatives on this site do not like me because I do not give them a free pass, like Maineman gives ANY ONE that supports his position.

Bush is not a great President, but he is not the worst AND given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004 he was the only one worth voting for.

I have even praised Clinton. I think he did the right thing in Bosnia and that whole area. I was surprised he had the balls to do it and did not subscribe to the theory he did it just to divert attention from his inabilty to keep his dick in his pants.

 

[Shogun]

 

[maineman]

LOL, you know as well as I do that Kennedy is directly responsible for the death of that girl and if he were not a kennedy he would have been tried and convicted of killing her. HE fled the scene and hid out for hours to sober up before even reporting it.

As for Clinton he ADMITTED he lied to a sitting Judge UNDER oath, I suggest you read the definition of Perjury.

I suggest YOU read the definition of MURDER, CRIME, and GUILT.

Kennedy is not guilty of the crime of murder and Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury.

moron.

 

[Paulie]

Bush is not a great President, but he is not the worst AND given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004 he was the only one worth voting for.

Everything else you said I can agree with.

But if you don't see anyone to vote for that you truely agree with and believe in, why vote?

"None of the above" can make just as much of a statement as "lesser of 2 evils". And at least "none of the above" doesn't lead to one of those EVILS.

This whole country needs to be reformed in the election department. People vote for a perceived "winner" over their heart.

I've seen it COUNTLESS times so far on the RP campaign trail. Believe me, RP would have DOUBLE the votes he's gotten had the people who who wanted to vote for someone they thought would WIN instead, had voted for him.

So instead of getting what they would have ultimately WANTED, they're stuck with someone they'll probably be complaining about for the next 4-8 years. just so their vote would "count".

Where's the sense in that? ANYONE can be president in this country.

Isn't that what we were taught as kids growing up? How can you grow up with the mentality that you want to be president in this country, if apparently to be president, you have to sell your soul to pander to the establishment in order for it to even be possible?

 

[maineman]

You know how these partisan bigots work:
If its a Dem, the accusation has to be proven in court; if its a Republican, the accusation alone is proof enough.

see...that is the difference between using terms that have meanings in our law and words that don't. LYING is not a crime. Lying under oath about a matter that a court of law deems to be material to the case in question IS a crime which is called perjury. Bush clearly lied when he made statements concerning the absolute certainty of Saddam's WMD's which were designed to create a false impression. Clinton is not guilty of perjury in that no court ever found him guilty of that crime. "Causing someone's death" is not a crime... "murder" is. Similarly, Kennedy is not "guilty" of the crime of murder.

 

[Taomon]

And you completely ignored the last reason of the resolution. Linking to peace sites is not proof of anything.

I didn't ignore it. I stated that we should have used diplomatic and economic resolutions and not aggression. Do you think aggression is the only way? Do you think the Iraqi people are better off now?

 

[Taomon]

You know how these partisan bigots work:
If its a Dem, the accusation has to be proven in court; if its a Republican, the accusation alone is proof enough.

No, the Dems are just as corrupt and contemptible as the Republicans.

 

[Taomon]

No I do not. I respond to stupidity no matter what "party" they belong to. You are of course aware that several of the supposed Conservatives on this site do not like me because I do not give them a free pass, like Maineman gives ANY ONE that supports his position.

Bush is not a great President, but he is not the worst AND given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004 he was the only one worth voting for.

I have even praised Clinton. I think he did the right thing in Bosnia and that whole area. I was surprised he had the balls to do it and did not subscribe to the theory he did it just to divert attention from his inabilty to keep his dick in his pants.

I'll believe it when I see it. Since I have been here you have only touted one myopic line and that is suspiciously aligned with the GOP.