Jump to content

Wars and the Presidents Behind Them


Recommended Posts

You appear to imply that America's wars were started for the h*ll of it instead of what they mostly were: responses to protect American interests from actions by other nations What would have happened had we stayed out of WW's I and II? Britain, our ancient ally, would certainly have been invaded by Hitler and who knows what Europe would look like now if Germany had won. Vietnam was begun by Eisenhower, continued by Kennedy (though Kennedy had started taking Americans out), escalated by Johnson and Nixon. Republican, Democrat, Democrat, Republican. Not all of our wars have been justified, but I don't believe any president came into office hoping to be a war president except for GWB, who said either before he was elected or just after that he indeed wanted to be one, which I think is macabre and the ultimate in selfishness to say the least, since to be a war president you send thousands of young Americans to their deaths for your own glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You appear to imply that America's wars were started for the h*ll of it instead of what they mostly were: responses to protect American interests from actions by other nations What would have happened had we stayed out of WW's I and II? Britain, our ancient ally, would certainly have been invaded by Hitler and who knows what Europe would look like now if Germany had won. Vietnam was begun by Eisenhower, continued by Kennedy (though Kennedy had started taking Americans out), escalated by Johnson and Nixon. Republican, Democrat, Democrat, Republican. Not all of our wars have been justified, but I don't believe any president came into office hoping to be a war president except for GWB, who said either before he was elected or just after that he indeed wanted to be one, which I think is macabre and the ultimate in selfishness to say the least, since to be a war president you send thousands of young Americans to their deaths for your own glory.

 

You need to brush up on your history. Hitler couldn't invade England because "so much was owed, by so many - to so few". IOW, The Luftwaffe got their ass's handed to them by the RAF. Hitler didn't even have vessels to transport an army across the channel, nor a Navy to protect it from a vastly superior English navy. Thus, like the mental midget he was, he turned east and assured his demise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to brush up on your history. Hitler couldn't invade England because "so much was owed, by so many - to so few". IOW, The Luftwaffe got their ass's handed to them by the RAF. Hitler didn't even have vessels to transport an army across the channel, nor a Navy to protect it from a vastly superior English navy. Thus, like the mental midget he was, he turned east and assured his demise.

 

Germany was already on it's way to being whipped by the time the Americans got into the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You appear to imply that America's wars were started for the h*ll of it instead of what they mostly were: responses to protect American interests from actions by other nations What would have happened had we stayed out of WW's I and II? Britain, our ancient ally, would certainly have been invaded by Hitler and who knows what Europe would look like now if Germany had won. Vietnam was begun by Eisenhower, continued by Kennedy (though Kennedy had started taking Americans out), escalated by Johnson and Nixon. Republican, Democrat, Democrat, Republican. Not all of our wars have been justified, but I don't believe any president came into office hoping to be a war president except for GWB, who said either before he was elected or just after that he indeed wanted to be one, which I think is macabre and the ultimate in selfishness to say the least, since to be a war president you send thousands of young Americans to their deaths for your own glory.

"except for GWB"

 

 

And here is where your hypocrisy begins. Both Dems and Repubs believed that Saddam would eventually threaten the rest of the world.

 

The Dems were on the same page as Bush, until they took the opportunity to flip flop and call Bush a liar for the very things they supported.

 

 

Come on Lisa...at least be intellectually honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were told invading Iraq was just as much "they were part of the WTC attacks" as their having WMD's. There's videotape of Cheney saying this. Even after it was proven he had nothing to do with those attacks, I never heard the Bush administration admit it.

 

Yes, we all believed that he had WMD's, but it was found out fairly soon that he either never had them or had moved them from the country, so what was the justification for making it into America's longest war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"except for GWB"

 

 

And here is where your hypocrisy begins. Both Dems and Repubs believed that Saddam would eventually threaten the rest of the world.

 

The Dems were on the same page as Bush, until they took the opportunity to flip flop and call Bush a liar for the very things they supported.

 

 

Come on Lisa...at least be intellectually honest.

 

Amen, Amen and AAAmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were told invading Iraq was just as much "they were part of the WTC attacks" as their having WMD's. There's videotape of Cheney saying this. Even after it was proven he had nothing to do with those attacks, I never heard the Bush administration admit it.

 

Yes, we all believed that he had WMD's, but it was found out fairly soon that he either never had them or had moved them from the country, so what was the justification for making it into America's longest war?

 

More lies. Not only did he have them - the SOB used them, on his own people.

 

As far as sticking around so long, I agree. Same thing regarding Afghanistan. Why is Oblamer pushing those idiots in the sand box so hard to sign on for another 10 yrs to indefinately for American boots on the ground?

 

Germany was already on it's way to being whipped by the time the Americans got into the war.

 

Their losing was assured by invading Russia. Us joining Britain against them after being attacked by Japan just sped things up. Japan bombing Pearl Harbor did serve FDR's desire to join with Britain against Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry voted for it.........................Before he voted against it. hahaha. Bush went to the congress. Bush presented them with the evidence he had. They voted for it. Obama said Afgan. was the correct war. Now we may be there for another decade. Obama, the war president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe any president came into office hoping to be a war president except for GWB, who said either before he was elected or just after that he indeed wanted to be one

 

Go ahead, Lisa, prove that GWB said he wanted to be a war President, before or just after he was elected.

 

I bet you can't do it, and for someone who repeatedly claims to be a student of history, you sure get a lot of that history wrong.

 

Truth be told, this is just another one of the false memes started and propagated by Bush-hating Democrats.

 

Just like their falsely claiming Bush said Saddam's Iraq was an "imminent" threat as a justification for war.

 

In fact, at the Unity 2004 joint convention of minority journalists, Bush said "I wish I wasn't the 'war president.' Who the heck wants to be a 'war president?' I don't."

 

Now if you really want to discuss a President who entered office wanting to be a "War President", you might look at John F Kennedy. In his nomination acceptance speech he said "Communist influence has penetrated further into Asia, stood astride in the Middle East and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida…We must prove all over again whether this nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure; whether our society, with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives, can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.". In his inaugural address, JFK said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty…To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends…To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny…we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves for whatever period is required…To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge to convert our good words into good deeds in a new alliance for progress…Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas and let every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house…In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it…And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." He was telling Americans that he was going to oppose communist expansion with military force everywhere in the world.

 

And that's exactly what he then did, Lisa. He greatly expanded our military. He changed our official military/strategic doctrine to theoretically have the capability of engaging simultaneously in irregular, conventional, or nuclear warfare. He ordered Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, to plan and manage an across-the-board buildup of America’s conventional military forces and mandated that the U.S. military be mobilized to wage wars of suppression against revolutionary guerrilla upheavals in the Third World. President Kennedy ordered substantial increases in American intercontinental ballistic missile forces, added five new army divisions, and increased the nation's air power and military reserves. And he then used that military force. He sent 50,000 Marines into Thailand in 1962 “to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside”. He began the US role in Laos under the pretext of being “military support of anti-communist forces”. He quarantined “the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union” using military force ... military force that, by the way, brought us to the very brink of global nuclear war. The Soviets backed down in face of overwhelming military might. And then he began the Vietnam War, committing 20,000 "advisors" to the effort knowing full well that advisors wouldn't be the end of needed support. He even tried to invade Cuba. And that's only the stuff that happened on the surface. In the shadows another war was being waged against communism. With coups. Assassinations. Efforts to destabilize communist regimes. Efforts to keep countries from supporting the USSR or becoming satellites. And you can't claim this wasn't a direct result of JFK's stated beliefs and "wants" prior to becoming President.

 

Now, Lisa, I'm not saying that what JFK did was wrong. On the contrary. (Ironically, if you listen to most Democrats nowadays you'd think it was wrong.)

 

What I'm saying is that your knowledge of history is sorely lacking.

 

And you've just demonstrated that once again for all to see. :D

Germany was already on it's way to being whipped by the time the Americans got into the war.

 

Are you some sort of idiot? Are you a db sock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were told invading Iraq was just as much "they were part of the WTC attacks" as their having WMD's. There's videotape of Cheney saying this. Even after it was proven he had nothing to do with those attacks, I never heard the Bush administration admit it.

 

Yes, we all believed that he had WMD's, but it was found out fairly soon that he either never had them or had moved them from the country, so what was the justification for making it into America's longest war?

 

Vietnam: 1955 - 1975, i.e. 20 years

Iraq: 2003 - 2012, i.e. 9 years

Afghanistan: 2001 - 2013 (so far), i.e. 12 years

 

I'm confused, which is longer than 20 years? 9 or 20?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were told invading Iraq was just as much "they were part of the WTC attacks" as their having WMD's. ... snipped ... Even after it was proven he had nothing to do with those attacks

Here you go again, Lisa.

 

That was never "proven".

 

In fact, a US court concluded just the opposite. Two 9/11 families were awarded over $100 million by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer based on evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml ) in part, because of an editorial that was published July 21, 2001 in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya which was owned by Saddam's son, Qusay. The columnist was Naeem Abd Muhalhal, who evidence at the trial showed had a long term connection with Iraqi Intelligence.

 

On September 12, 2002, Senator Fritz Hollings entered the editorial into the Congressional record (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005332.php ). Here are a few quotes from it:

 

"Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House ....."

 

"It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs."

 

So just two months before 9/11 we have reference to upcoming attacks on the Pentagon, the White House and, if we are going to curse the memory of Frank Sinatra, New York (since New York, New York was Sinatra's most famous song) … in a newspaper controlled by Saddam and his son.

 

The statement that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting" would seem, in hindsight, to narrow down the New York target to the World Trade Center, since that was already attacked (and hurt) in the 1993 bombing.

 

Mulhalhal's editorial also contained the following: “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." That might be a reference to using airplanes as bullets in the attack.

 

Circumstantial, yes. But what a curious and unlikely coincidence. Especially when Saddam personally praised Muhalhal in the September 1, 2001 issue of that paper for his "documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished."

 

And consider the above in light of the following:

 

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/990304_in.htm "During the Gulf war, Iraq's media and officials threatened revenge in the form of assassinations and bombings. On Jan 30, 1991, INA warned, 'The American arena will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujhadin and all the honest strugglers in the world.' On Feb 9, Baghdad Radio read a cable from the chief of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam, 'We will chase them to every corner at all times. No high tower or house of steel will protect them against the

fire of truth.'" A curious way of phrasing things, don't you think? That might suggest planning for the WTC bombing began even during the first Gulf War.

 

Audio tapes captured in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion, that were recorded in the mid to late 90's, clearly suggest that Saddam and his closest advisors still considered themselves at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement stopping the fighting in the 1991 war. The 1993 bombing of the WTC tower was perhaps the first act in the continuation of that war.

 

Among the 1993 WTC bomb plotters was Abdul Rahman Yasin. He was caught after the attack but then stupidly released by the police … where upon he fled … guess where … IRAQ. Documents found in Iraq after the invasion show he was put on government payroll and given a home. In addition, "an ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government."

 

The leader of the plot was Ramzi Yousef. The authorities detained him briefly before the attack as he entered the US. He lacked a passport or visa that allow him to enter the US but presented an Iraqi passport, that he told inspectors was phony (they never checked), claiming to be fleeing Saddam and needing asylum. So they released him. STUPID.

 

Ramzi Yousef was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi".

 

Now get this ... Yousef was one of the original planners of Operation Bojinka in 1994. That was a plot to attack buildings with … guess what? … airplanes.

 

And how about Ahmad Hikmat Shakir? He was an Iraqi who worked at the airport in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. Page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence says "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir met two of the 9/11 hijackers ... Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi ... at the Kuala Lampur airport and then escorted them to a hotel. Shakir was arrested in Qatar in September 2001. On his person and in his apartment, investigators found documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bombing and “Operation Bojinka”. He was released by the Qataris, but then arrested in Jordan … AS HE ATTEMPTED TO BOARD A FLIGHT TO IRAQ. The Jordanians held him for three months before pressure from SADDAM HUSSEIN caused his release. Whereupon HE RETURNED TO BAGHDAD.

 

Sorry Lisa, but Iraq was clearly involved in the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers. You can't deny this.

 

So why not the second WTC attack, Lisa? It seems only logical, given everything else we now know.

 

The WTC bomb plot can be viewed another way, as well. Although Iraqis were involved, all ten of those convicted in the plot are identified as islamic fundamentalists. Since the anti-war naysayers are always pointing to Saddam's secularism as proof that he would have nothing to do with islamic fundamentalists (like al-Zarqawi), the plot was set up provides a certain deniability on Iraq's part. Perhaps from the very beginning, authorities were meant to suspect islamic terrorists, rather than Iraq. It just didn't go as planned because the FBI had an informant in their midst. This may demonstrate that Saddam was not above instigating a plot where someone else gets blamed. A false flag operation.

 

Throughout the 90's Iraq cultivated a relationship with al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Here's a good summary based on a variety of sources:

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/78/Wtccomp.htm

 

If even a fraction of those assertions are true (and many of them are corroborated by more than one source), then the case for a Saddam / al-Qaeda connection is strong, making pre-awareness of the 9/11 attack and even some Iraqi participation in the 9/11 plot more likely than the anti-war community and the mainstream press wants to admit.

 

For example, Farouk Hijazi, an Iraqi intelligence officer, reportedly met with Bin Laden in Kandahar in December 1998. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," according to a 1999 report in the Guardian. Also in 1998, two of bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad for discussions with Qusay Hussein ... the son who owned the paper in which Mulhalhal published his prescient article.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2 " On December 28 Milan's Corriere della Sera reported 'Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden have sealed a pact.' In its issue dated January 11, 1999, Newsweek quoted an anonymous 'Arab intelligence officer who knows Saddam personally' as warning that 'very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis' against Western targets. The Iraqi plan would be run under one of three 'false flags': Palestinian, Iranian, and the 'al Qaeda apparatus.' All of these groups, Newsweek reported, had representatives in Baghdad."

 

The above source lists a large number of other connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq and reasons to suspect Iraq knew and was involved in more than the anti-war community and liberal media will admit.

 

Then there is the fact that the Czech government to this day maintains they are 70% certain that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent, Al-Ani, in Europe five months before 9/11 in April, 2001 (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030729-093909-9839r.htm and

ref="http://edjayepstein.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_edjayepstein_archive.html ). The intelligence agent's day planner (seized after the war in what had been the Iraq regime's Czech embassy) indicates a meeting on that day with a "Hamburg Student", which coincidentally is the occupation Atta listed on his passport.

 

Atta's whereabouts during the time in question are not known. He disappeared off the FBI's radar in the US for a week around the date of the alleged meeting, immediately after withdrawing $8000 out of a bank account. The ONLY thing suggesting he was still in the US was the use of his cell phone. But the hijackers shared cars, apartments, bank accounts ... why not a cell phone that wouldn't have been usable in Europe anyway?

 

A secret CIA memo, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited evidence that Iraqi intelligence bankrolled Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to 9/11. That memo said Atta met as many as four times in Prague with al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks. The Czech government stated their certainty that Atta did meet al-Ani on a previous occasion. The 911 Commission said Atta "is known to have been in Prague on two occasions" — once for a single night in December 1994, and once for a single night in June 2000. Curiously enough, 3 days after the 2000 meeting, a large amount of money showed up in Atta's bank account. Three days after the alleged April 2001 meeting, a large amount of money was again deposited to Atta's account.

 

And note ... Colonel al-Ani headed Iraq's department for "special operations". He's exactly the person Iraq might have picked to handle such an important case. Plus, senior US intelligence sources said the CIA had 'credible information' that at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States.

 

And then we have Atta asking about crop dusters at a time when the decision had already been made to crash commercial jets into the buildings. And the coincidence of Atta and the hijackers residing in Florida within a few miles of where the very first case of anthrax showed up. And the coincidence of Atta and another hijacker visiting a doctor and a pharmacist to get treatment for skin conditions that in hindsight those two medical professionals as well as doctors from John Hopkin's say were likely anthrax. And if the hijackers had something to do with the anthrax attack, where did they get the anthrax? Since claims that the anthrax was made by an American have now been thoroughly discredited, why not Iraq? It all fits.

 

And as to your claims that Iraq was known before the invasion not to have WMD, explain the binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion?

 

That's just one of the 6 questions I've asked liberals repeatedly about WMD and Iraq. You game to try?

 

Or will we just hear more {crickets}? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answers to those points.

 

I know this: Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein and vice versa. OBL was a fanatical Muslim with radical Islamist views and believed that all Islamic states should be run like Afghanistan, which is as extreme, especially in its horrific treatment of women, as it gets. Saddam Hussein was none of those things and ran Iraq as a secular, not a religious, state. This enraged bin Laden, who considered Hussein a heretic.

 

Hussein was interested in living the high life. He had multiple palaces. He knew if he attacked the United States he would lose those palaces, those women, everything. He had no religious convictions like bin Laden, who believed the United States was a den of iniquity. Bin Laden was not interested in palaces. He was on a religious crusade to convert the world to Islam. Hussein was tolerant of all religions, whose members practiced them pretty freely in Iraq, something bin Laden would never allow.

 

So why would Hussein be willing to offer any assistance to somebody like bin Laden, with whom he had nothing in common? Al Queda was not even in Iraq before we invaded them, coming in only after we did. Hussein took their help then, because his regime, his opulent lifestyle were in jeopardy.

 

It makes no sense then to suppose Hussein had anything to do with the attacks in New York, PA, or Washington.

 

But there was another Islamic state with plenty of reason (the religious kind, of course) to hate and attack the US, but covertly, since the US is an important trading partner to them. That would be Saudi Arabia. Their brand of Islam, Wahabbism, isn't far behind the Taliban in its fanatical religious beliefs. And who were the attackers on 9/11?

 

Saudi Arabian men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answers to those points.

So you'll pretend like I didn't make them? :rolleyes:

 

Good grief, Lisa, can you get any more pathetic?

 

I know this: Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein and vice versa.

Really?

 

And what makes you so sure about that?

 

Was it the fact that Saddam was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely out of his country just before the war? It is a fact that the Jordanians captured a dozen self-declared al-Qaeda terrorists entering their country with the vehicles and materials to conduct a massive chemical attack against their government's facilities and the US embassy in Amman. The terrorists believed they would kill EVERYONE in the US embassy and, in fact, hoped to kill 80,000 Jordanians. There was testimony from experts at their trial that what they planned might have killed tens of thousands. The leader of those terrorists admitted that the plot was funded by al-Zarqawi and that he met with al-Zarqawi to discuss the plot and get the funding IN BAGHDAD BEFORE 2003 … in other words, well before the war. It is known that Saddam was aware of the presense of al-Zarqawi and his people in his country and at one point Saddam even intervened personally to order the release of one of al-Zarqawis lieutenants who the police had detained for committing a crime.

 

Is that your evidence, Lisa?

 

Because it doesn't seem to prove what you claim at all.

 

And there is much more to prove you don't know what you are talking about.

 

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee (http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf ), a 2002 CIA document summarized its overall view of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities this way: "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence."

 

OBL was a fanatical Muslim with radical Islamist views and believed that all Islamic states should be run like Afghanistan, which is as extreme, especially in its horrific treatment of women, as it gets. Saddam Hussein was none of those things and ran Iraq as a secular, not a religious, state. This enraged bin Laden, who considered Hussein a heretic.

But long before the invasion ... in fact, long before 9/11, Saddam was remaking his image into that of a friend of the Islamists. In 1994, he began to play the "faith card" big time. He built schools that promoted mandatory Qur'an studies. He built training centers for imams. And don't forget the Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Iraq's radio stations began airing Qur'anic lessons. Alcohol was banned in restaurants. Even Baath party officials were required to take courses in the Qur'an. Murals of Saddam sprang up all over with him shown in prayer. He built three huge mosques and even had a Qur'an written in his own blood. And keep in mind that at the time of 9/11 and later, there were numerous friendly contacts going on between Iraq and al-Qaeda officials. Just take a close look at this mural and tell us Saddam hated al-Qaeda:

 

3rd-infantry-saddam-911c.jpg

 

We'll just laugh again at your *grasp* of historical knowledge.

 

Hussein was interested in living the high life.

Which of course explains why rather than leave Iraq when Bush gave him the option and live out the remainder of his life with the BILLIONS of dollars he'd smuggled out of the country to spend on "the high life", he chose to stay, plan for a resistance, and hide from our bombs in the dirty hole in the ground where we eventually found him. :rolleyes:

 

He had multiple palaces. He knew if he attacked the United States he would lose hose palaces, those women, everything.

Only if he was caught.

 

We captured audio recordings of he and his staff discussing the use of "third parties" to attack the US with WMD.

 

Don't you know this?

 

As I already noted (and you ignored) the signs point to him using "false flag" operations.

 

Do you know that after 9/11 he warned the Taliban and al-Qaeda that we had proof of their involvement in 911 and were going to attack them?

 

That doesn't sound like what their enemy would have done at all.

 

He had no religious convictions like bin Laden

And yet he had a Qur'an written in his own blood.

 

Imagine that.

 

So why would Hussein be willing to offer any assistance to somebody like bin Laden, with whom he had nothing in common?

Why did the USSR cooperate with the US and Britain in WW2?

 

It's that old saying … the enemies of my enemy are my friends … (and there is always tomorrow to take it back).

 

Al Queda was not even in Iraq before we invaded them, coming in only after we did.

False, as I proved above.

 

Al-Qaeda was present in Baghdad and in Northern Iraq (which Saddam's agents were regularly visiting according to intelligence sources) BEFORE THE INVASION.

 

It makes no sense then to suppose Hussein had anything to do with the attacks in New York, PA, or Washington.

And yet there is clear evidence that Iraq was involved in the 1993 WTC attack, an al-Qaeda plot to use airliners as bombs, and knew about 9/11 before it occurred.

 

Iraq even published an interview with bin Laden where they boasted that he had some upcoming major actions in the works.

 

But there was another Islamic state with plenty of reason (the religious kind, of course) to hate and attack the US, but covertly, since the US is an important trading partner to them. That would be Saudi Arabia.

LOL!

 

So now you're going to argue like a 9/11 Truther would?

 

Yes, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

 

But what did the Saudi government do to al-Qaeda after the attack?

 

Hunt al-Qaeda down and kill them.

 

Unlike Saddam … who openly applauded the attack.

 

In fact, Saddam was the only leader of a nation on earth to do that.

 

Imagine that. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to brush up on your history. Hitler couldn't invade England because "so much was owed, by so many - to so few". IOW, The Luftwaffe got their ass's handed to them by the RAF. Hitler didn't even have vessels to transport an army across the channel, nor a Navy to protect it from a vastly superior English navy. Thus, like the mental midget he was, he turned east and assured his demise.

England in 1940-41 was unable to feed its population on domestically produced food.

 

The U-Boat and Luftwaffe blockage would have starved England without American intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1456501_10151847514751275_194810518_n_zp

The 500,000 dead Iraqis claim is sheer nonsense.

 

The $2 to $6 Trillion figure is equal nonsense, unless you want to use the same costing algorithm on all our other wars.

 

Which you don't.

 

And would you like to guess the cost in dollars and lives had we not invaded and toppled Saddam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were told invading Iraq was just as much "they were part of the WTC attacks" as their having WMD's. There's videotape of Cheney saying this. Even after it was proven he had nothing to do with those attacks, I never heard the Bush administration admit it.

 

Yes, we all believed that he had WMD's, but it was found out fairly soon that he either never had them or had moved them from the country, so what was the justification for making it into America's longest war?

This is where it gets very very uncomfortable for HONEST Democrats. Who FUNDED the war AFTER it was found that Saddam did not have WMDs? The Reid-Pelosi Democrat Congress of Change. The longest war? The war in Afghanistan...still going on in YEAR FIVE of "Hope and Change." So what is the justification NOW, in 2013 (going on 2014)?

1456501_10151847514751275_194810518_n_zp

Please explain...IN DETAIL IF YOU CAN...why we are STILL in Afghanistan...some FIVE YEARS post "Hope and Change." We'll wait!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love it!

 

true too

 

BTW, if you favored the invasion of Iraq but did not serve in the military in a war, you are a chickenhawk and almost worse than a teapartier...while both are treasonous garbage, chickenhawks win the contest

 

You must really be bummed out the vast majority of your kind in Congress favored, approved, and voted for the continuation of the war..........in addition to almost all of them having not served our country.

 

And just where did you serve might I ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...