financeguy said:
I believe so.
But it appears the other side has the monopoly on 'facts'.
Right.....
financeguy said:
I believe so.
But it appears the other side has the monopoly on 'facts'.
Dreadsox said:
Right.....
starvinmarvin said:
OK, so you want to talk about "the facts?" The most obvious fact is that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's right, the number one "reason" given by Cheney et al for invading Iraq was that Iraq supposedly was a threat to its neighbors (and the US) because it had massive stockpiles of these WMDs.
But there were no WMDs. So either some individuals in the US governemnt were lying, or they were incompetent. Either way, they need to be held accountable for their serious actions. And that's a fact.
Dreadsox said:
Then every other intelligence agency in the world was wrong to, as was the prior administration.
Incompentant, maybe....not impeachable.
starvinmarvin said:
The difference between the USA and most of the major military powers in the world was that the USA initiated military action against Iraq based on these false assumptions. The others were wise enough to wait until conclusive proof was brought to light.
Look, Saddam WANTED everyone to believe that he had these weapons. If anyone knew how weak he truly was, Iraq would have been invaded by neighboring countries ten years prior, not to mention the US. But the point is that he was bluffing, and certain individuals in the US government WANTED to believe he was a huge threat to justify the invasion of Iraq. there is no doubt about it.
Dreadsox said:
I had a thread in the War area two years ago, basically presenting the argument that Saddam wanted the world to think that as well......
i am glad his bluff was called.
starvinmarvin said:
Why? So that you could feel safe that the "boogyman" is in his cage now?
Dreadsox said:Oh yes....that is it....thanks for the intelligent discusion....
financeguy said:
time to get out the violins.....again....
Dreadsox said:Where is my troll spray?
financeguy said:
Probably beside your '300 easy ways to back out of a debate' self-help book...
Dreadsox said:However,,,,,,my beautiful bride is calling me,,,,and that is WAAAAYYYY more important than this conversation.
starvinmarvin said:
The difference between the USA and most of the major military powers in the world was that the USA initiated military action against Iraq based on these false assumptions. The others were wise enough to wait until conclusive proof was brought to light.
Look, Saddam WANTED everyone to believe that he had these weapons. If anyone knew how weak he truly was, Iraq would have been invaded by neighboring countries ten years prior, not to mention the US. But the point is that he was bluffing, and certain individuals in the US government WANTED to believe he was a huge threat to justify the invasion of Iraq. there is no doubt about it.
STING2 said:
The United States was not the only country that took part in the coalition invasion either.
MrsSpringsteen said:this doesn't really fit in perfectly here,sorry..but to avoid starting a thread
Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars
Scarletwine said:
That would be a great signature!
:woowoo: Pre emptive strikeDreadsox said:
Where is my troll spray?
MrsSpringsteen said:
phanan said:
No, but along with Britain, the U.S. was the only major country heavily involved in this supposed coalition.
Not much of a coalition if you ask me.
STING2 said:
Can you name an example of a "real" coalition from history without going back to World War II?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Have we ever claimed and made such a big deal about coalition since then?
STING2 said:
Absolutely, and I consider the current coalition in Iraq, to be a "real" coalition.
STING2 said:
Absolutely, and I consider the current coalition in Iraq, to be a "real" coalition.
BonosSaint said:
And would you not allow that some people may not consider this a "real" coalition?
BonosSaint said:
How? The British and who else of any substanative support? What are the numbers and the real contribution of the others other than symbolic?
And would you not allow that some people may not consider this a "real" coalition?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I meant have we ever gone out of our way to sell the fact that we had a coalition like this war? And when?
I think the numbers and the amount we've had pull out speaks for itself.