Yay for stumbler! :excited:

 

You guys constantly go on about the lie of the WMDs.

If the UN and Hans Blix and all the rest were wrong about the WMDs, then it wasn't a lie. It was a mistake.

But I am curious. You keep insisting it was a lie. So, if Bush and Cheney lied about it, what was their real reason for going into Iraq?

 

You should be a little smarter than that if you want to keep up with the conversation. No one except for the democrats ever said 9/11 had anything to do with it.
Maybe you can do a little research and be able to keep up.

 

Please do not tell me you are not anymore informed than stumbler. You will have to help him with his research. Things are on the web if you will just look for them. Don't be a fool when the answers are right there for you.

 

+1

It is an inconvenient truth that we were already going in, before Hans Blix commenced his final inventory. We were already preparing.

The WMDs were a pretext, and a credible one. Stories at the time speculated (before we even went in) that we would not likely find missing SCUD and sarin inventory there, because Hans Blix was dragging the inventory out for so long that he was giving the Hussein regime an eternity to move most of the material to Syria.

The recent chemical weapons attacks in Syria could not have been perpetrated with the "missing" Iraqi WMDs, because the ordnance does not have that long a shelf life.

However, I would not be at all surprised if obsolete/useless chemical ordnance of Iraqi origin comprises much of the crap that Assad has consented to let the UN destroy under the bogus deal he cut with Obama and company last year.

I can't prove it of course, and ultimately it does not matter. Because going into Iraq was never really about WMDs. But it is a curiosity, because the missing inventory was never found, and Syria was considered the likely recipient of most of the inventory at the time.

 

Yeah, here's a whole Wikipedia page about the Bush administration linking Saddam and al Qeada and 9/11.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

 

You can do better than that, or I hope you can.
I usually give people more credit than others might.

 

Even if it was a mistake, it was a catastrophic mistake. Imagine that it is 1951. The war with Japan is continuing with no end in sight. For years it has been known that Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

They thought the war would be easy. They thought the Iraqis would greet American forces as liberators, and quickly set up a pro American, pro capitalist democracy. They thought Iraqi oil would lower the price of gasoline.

I can understand their optimism. During World War II the Italians did greet American and British forces as liberators, even though Italy had recently been an ally of Nazi Germany. After the fall of the Soviet Union Eastern European countries did set up pro American pro capitalist democracies.

Nevertheless, Iraq turned out to be different - way different.

 

I like stumbler's "Let's cut the crap," attitude. I am too polite for you guys.

 

So, can't actually argue the content? You said it was only the dems that tried to connect 9/11 to Iraq, this page shows you that Bush was actually making that case.

Prove it wrong, don't just try to sweep it under the rug.

 

clairise you asked for the real reason for the iraqui invasion
oil and water
that is what it came down to
in history wars have been fought over water, oil, salt, religion, and land
we as a nation do not want iraq
the muslims did not harm our nation
and iraq did not launch an attack on US soil
that was done by the taliban backed by the iranian government
who do you think funds most al queada attacks and training?

 

Shooter was about to jump in and explain about the war with Iraq.

Then he read the comments by everyone.

And realized, either these people are on drugs, or they need more oxygen pumped into this room.

Then he decided they were all just kidding around, and decided he couldn't do better with the humor.

Ah well, more to explore today

 

Shooter, what matters now is the decision Pres Obama makes or does not make. And not just about Iraq. We have other matters concerning hostages taken by Hamas, and the rest of the Middle East, including the pending farcical nuclear talks with Iran.

Pres Obama still has a incredibly slender window open to pull his flaming tail out of the fire and not drag our nation in with it. Yet I do not expect any real change from his uttermost incompetent failure.

 

You and stumbler do have something in common. You both only see half of the conversation. The half you do see is a very distorted view.
Neither of you even notice how people make a fool of you and your posts. That is in the half of the discussion that you don't see.
It is very common for people who are more committed to a party than they are to the truth.

 

Please read the above post and add your name along with the other two.

 

You are diverting again. Address the content of the discussion, not the people engaged in the conversation.

 

You've admitted that you don't even freaking vote, and now you think you can lecture others on their citizenship? Get over yourself.

 

you really should use a more reliable source as anyone and his/her mother can post just about anything on wiki and people will take it as comeing from Gods own mouth.

Not saying your wrong but wiki is pretty much junk IMHO.

 

Well, if it is junk, you should have no trouble disproving what they say instead of just trying to sweep it under the rug. I totally get wiki's model, but the thing you don't understand about it is that it is a self-correcting model. Anyone is allowed to post, but also anyone is allowed to challenge the content, too.

So, prove the content is flawed.

Also, I never claimed they were the be-all/end-all of info.