Saddam may have been a brutal dictator but he couldn't be a terrorists. Terrorism is nonestate warfare and Iraq is a state. Saddam was a friend of the whitehouse, he fighted the iranian mullah regime for you. He became an enemy when US was going to save Kuwait, a mission that was ordered by Saudiarabia.
Plotted during what administration? Which administration let osama go three times? Tell Sandy Berger that GTech said "nice try." Looks like a lot of sources above that are not from the whitehouse. Hows your reading comprehension working out? Actually, the biggest wuss would be the nutjob that is always whining about the constitution in support of his favorite al qaida terrorist, Jose Padilla. Are you trying for moral equivalence again? Bless your heart, you are really saddened that saddam isn't in power anymore. Don't you have access to free insurance in Canada? Perhaps you can get some counselling. Tell Jose hello for me, won't you? All the citizen's rights? Now that's classy! Here I am, exercising my right to call you a total nutjob and al qaida sympathizer (you are sympathetic to Jose Padilla, right? He is an al qaida terrorist.) I woke up this morning and a burly midget dressed in black told me I couldn't fart as I rolled out of bed. As I left my home to get in my truck and go to the store, the Chevrolet Fairy told me I didn't have the right to do that. As turned on the TV tonight, the Cable Fairy told me I could only watch one TV station. I have the right to celebrate Thanksgiving. Liberals are working hard that I don't have the right to celebrate Christmas, but for now, I still can. I can tell a cop to kiss my entire ass, if I so desired. I can vote, I can own a weapon (except where liberals have taken away the constitution in San Francisco). Wow, all my rights are just completely gone Nutjob!
The reason given to attack Iraq was nothing but fear, playing on 9/11 and 'terror' it was not sold on removing a dictator. Don't you remember the mushroom cloud speach? The largest terror attack on US soil during GWB I do not think is something to be proud of. I did not like Clinton but be realistic #1 it was not daily terror attacks on the US, #2 before 9/11 the public did not support an all out war against terror, #3 GWB himself was not pushing an all out war on terror prior 9/11. Just because we have not been hit yet doesn't mean all that much considering we were never hit on a daily or even yearly basis in the US. I'm going to give you a chance to fix this one as it's fully inaccurate and incorrect. The case based and eaten up by Americans on fear and terror, there is no denying that. Look at the speaches given, the fact that we were there to get the WMD before they were given to a terrorist and tell me honestly it was not based off of fear or terror, at least to the bare minimum the extent that the public supported it. Again answered above. Do you honestly think the public supported the war on the fact of getting Saddam for UN resolutions. That is just absolute rubish, the war was sold on the basis of fear following 9/11, to say otherwise it just trully being dishonest. Yes the UN resolutions are reasons given by the administration including WMD's being handed over to terrorists, but again why did the public support it? I can guarantee you most supported it out of fear of terrorists of which GWB and the admin brought up terror and 9/11 in every speach. If Iraq was not sold off of terrorism then why did the administration use 9/11 and terror in their speaches for the war? Sorry to hear about your car I'm from Wisconsin as well
Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday. ............................. Sixty percent of the 1,006 adult Americans interviewed by telephone Friday through Sunday said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president. ................................ Sixty percent said it was not worth going to war in Iraq, while 38 percent said it was worthwhile. The results marked a decline in support of seven percentage points from two months earlier. ............................... About 50 percent of people polled said they disliked Bush, with 6 percent claiming to hate the president. ............................ When asked in the new poll if they trust Bush more than they had Clinton, 48 percent of respondents said they trusted Bush less, while 36 percent said they trusted him more and 15 percent said they trusted Bush the same as Clinton. For the first time, more than half of the public thinks Bush is not honest and trustworthy -- 52 percent to 46 percent. Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low (CNN today) According to Gtech this makes more than of the people in USA, wuss and terrorist supporter.
I tried to tell this to Mia: Saddam may have been a brutal dictator but he couldn't be a terrorists. Terrorism is nonestate warfare and Iraq is a state.
Sorry, but I don't think that the people are mature enough to take such decisions. They don't know much about the enemy, they know what bar they want to go in and drink in. Not because I am against democratic elections but people aren't involved enough to take such important decisions like this.
And I chose not the respond initially because the statement did not make any sense. Iraq is a "state" now. However, it was previously a nation run by a Terrorist Dictator.
Mia, nope.. Iraq was a member of UN and accepted by many countries. That was also when Saddam was in the power.
I believe he is brutal but that doesn't mean he is a terrorist. Terrorists are not warriors under a government.
I said he was a terrorist dictator. What part of that did you not understand? 2 entries found for terrorist. ter·ror·ist ([FONT=verdana,sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (trr-st) n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. adj. Of or relating to terrorism. State or no state. Member of UN (like that means anything special), the definition fits.
What terrorists acts was done by Saddam? Actually.. Saddam should have credits for fighting the terrorist regime in Iran that supported and still supports terrorism. He also helped Turkey to fight the kurds(I don't agree with saddam on that point).
Rape, torture, mass genocide, mass murder, electrocuting people for fun, gassing people for fun, launching missles into Israel and other neighbors. Let's not forget supporting and harboring terrorists. I could go on.
#1 I do not support Clinton never had, #2 you trully are comparing an apples to oranges situation. With Clinton I always saw it as wag the dog. Regaurdless of Clinton our economy was in a different shape, we did not have inspectors in the country, we were not already in a full all out war against terror, we also bombed did not full out invade and take over Iraq. This might work with democrats but me not supporting Clinton I honestly don't see where you're trying to match them up. Ahh yes technically you've got me there, I'm talking about support for Alqueda, the few issues I've read that have been proven so far or at least are believeable and have not been disproven do not make for much of a relationship. Also check the list given on this site, at least 1 terrorist group listed was against Saddam himself. Yellowcake was actually known to exist in Iraq by the weapons inspectors, as were many items that were made inoperable and under seal so how is this disproving anything exactly? This proves unmanned arial vehicles being shipped into the US ready to attack us how exactly? Very confused on your reasoning here. The aluminum tubes did exist, however the only ones who believed or stated they were for nuclear weapon programs was I believe part of the CIA and Australia, possibly a few others, most however did not believe they were for nukes including those who would actually know something about them. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/al_tubes.html Yes there are many items, the list I'm sure would go on. If there trully was an imminent threat than no money and other issues would be set aside, I however was never sold on the immenent threat making other points perfectly valid. I have read most of it, most of it is stuff I've already heard and don't see unless you take this one persons word for everything it could change anyones mind, if you're on that side you of course will eat it up. Nope errors and being able to admit them in your case would show that you do see fuck ups and you are willing to admit it. I myself am already arguing against the fact and why. You try to counter, 'try' being the ultimate word. In your mind no matter what is shown it wont matter you're right, just like the VX is definitely VX with absolutely no proof it's VX in your mind no ifs ands or buts. You might be right, but there is no fact behind it, enough said on that subject. I'm not saying he was lying, he used the top picks out of US intelligence to base a case for war during peak time when the US population was behind him. Cherry picking as the dems are calling it now, it does work in this case. Many of the items were debated outside of the US, the key items to convincing the population are most of those items listed above. You've tried to, it is trully very amuzing.
You are talking about state millitary acts. And about supporting terrorists.. Are gunsellers the same as murders just because someone shot another with again that they got from them?
Nope, just showing your one-sidedness. Some times when you put apples and oranges together, you come up with fruit. The match is quite simple. The same people talking about saddam's wmd and how much he was a threat back then, are the same ones trying to rewrite history today. You didn't mention al qaida, but none-the-less, there were ties there as well and I have covered them before. This assumes that being under seal was the last of the requirements by UN resolutions. Destruction was the requirement, not being under seal. None-the-less, the yellow cake goes directly against your assertion that Bush lied about it. It proves they existed and were found. That Bush said they were ready to use them to attack the US is your assertion. I don't know that to be true, or not. You've made no effort to substantiate that claim. So once again, Bush didn't lie about this one either. Whose talking of imminent threat? Are you referring to the speech Bush gave where he said we must not wait until a threat is imminent? Your other points are not valid. You claimed Bush "emblished" facts surrounding these issues and clearly that is not true. Like a blog, where someone claims all of our rights are being taken away, and no one stands up and disputes it? So "everything" is a must, before "anything" is accepted? That makes sense, since many of the items you are claiming are directly covered and quoted very well. It's nice to see someone take the time and dig out the exact quotes of people, especially when others are attemping an all out rewrite of history. When you actually present something that is such, I'll let you know. Pretend the VX was in Bush's back yard. I'm sure you would find it more believable You mean like "Bush took us to an unecessary war because he said there was yellow cake, but it didn't exist?" Words to the affect? Embellishing is a fancy way of saying lying. He used intelligence from a broad spectrum. Of which you take issue, I've taken the time to show otherwise.