Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   11/10/22

      Help keep cascadeclimbers.com going!  Please consider donating so we can keep this site going.   We have set expenses right now but no revenue.  We do hope to getting a sponsor to help out, but for now we just need funds to upgrade the site and pay for hosting and licensing. See the "DONATE" tab in the top menu.
Sign in to follow this  
Lionel_Hutz

Why Aren't Americans More Pissed About This???

Recommended Posts

 

 

Because Dubya has successfully FLIP-FLOPPED. Now the reason to go to war was to "help the Iraqi people in their quest for liberty" etc etc..

 

"...It's hard work..."

 

"...the world is safer..."

 

"...vote for me or YOU GONNA DIE!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but what about the 9/11 link? There is ample evidence to suggest that, at one point, a 757 landed at the Baghdad Airport and it might have had some people wearing turbans on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spilled milk? Spilled blood, lots and lots of it. And are you saying we would have been worse off with Sadam in Power? He was such a threat to us with his utter lack of WMD and deteriorating nuclear power. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spilled milk

 

ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER!!!!

 

ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T MIND YOUR COUNTRY BEING DECIEVED BY ITS PRESIDENT???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER!!!!

 

ummmm......

 

We would be spending 200 BILLION DOLLARS on a war.

 

There wouldn't be a 1000+ dead americans.

 

We might actually be pursuing the real terrorists threats.

 

Countries like Iran, N Korea etc might not be so inclined to build nukes as a deterent to another preemptive strike.

 

Iraq would be a tightly controlled dictatorship not a free for all of insurgents, terrorists, islamic extremists etc.

 

Saddam would be no closer to having WMDs that he was before we invaded (see todays news on WMD report)

 

The rest of the world powers might actually be interested in collaberating with us to eliminate terrorist organizations.

 

We wouldn't have to listen to this shit every single day...

 

Whether the Iraqi people are better off is a different question. In the long run I certainly hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spilled milk? Spilled blood, lots and lots of it. And are you saying we would have been worse off with Sadam in Power? He was such a threat to us with his utter lack of WMD and deteriorating nuclear power. grin.gif

 

This is what the next to last paragraph said:

 

Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders would ultimately recognize that it was in the country's interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Liarnel, chucK is about as anti-shrub as they come. He's just getting your goat. And now that he's got it, out comes the vaseline... grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously missing are those who would actually take up the Bush banner. While I strongly dissagree with them, it is sad that we no longer hear from them. But that has been beat to death in another thread. It reminds me of listening to my father get all heated up over polotics. He would rant and rave even though everyone in the room agreed with him. Very boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's just getting your goat. And now that he's got it, out comes the vaseline... grin.gif

 

ah, now I see what I've been doing wrong.... smileysex5.gif

 

 

...and Bug thinks that this is boring. Ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are polotics, Keith? Are they facial tics polo players get after many years of sniffing horses asses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohmygod-- you put the lube on the SHEEP?

 

This changes everything. I need to sit down...ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders would ultimately recognize that it was in the country's interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found.

If this is borne out as the truth - then perhaps we're a step closer to sending Jorge back to Texas. Secular Muslim countries are few and far between, but Iraq was one. Was this considered at all or was it simply more important to avenge the attempted assassination of his father? In any case you'd think that North Korea and Iran would have rated more attention... mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously missing are those who would actually take up the Bush banner. While I strongly dissagree with them, it is sad that we no longer hear from them. But that has been beat to death in another thread. It reminds me of listening to my father get all heated up over polotics. He would rant and rave even though everyone in the room agreed with him. Very boring.

 

Words to live by:

 

"Never try to reason a man out of something that he wasn't reasoned into." bigdrink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohmygod-- you put the lube on the SHEEP?

 

This changes everything. I need to sit down...ouch.

 

Sheep: ribbed for your pleasure. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we need to be truthful enough to be pisssed about this too.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1167592004

"SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

 

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. . . ."

 

and this

"Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

 

And note that JFKerry said this

"[W]e don't know for certain whether the reports of defectors are completely true and our satellites cannot determine with complete accuracy whether new buildings and construction are designed to build weapons of mass destruction. So the question becomes: who gets the benefit of the doubt? A dictator who has used such weapons and declared the United States as an enemy or a democratic country that has already experienced terrorist catastrophe?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×