Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Stare long and hard at that bolded text. This time, I was patient, and let you answer the damn question all by yourself. Now, considering the fact that there was reason to believe he was actually seeking uranium for use in WMDs, there's also the fact that we're bound to protect countries like Kuwait; which he'd attacked previously WITHOUT nukes.
kuwaits oil reserves almost equal the size of iraq's. they would have never nuked it. we were assured that they knew for a fact that he was seking nukes and had ties to al qaeda.
its like trying to convince you that the sky is blue and you wont hear it.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
And given the absolute disregard he'd shown for the lives of his own people in the past,
posing no threat to america...
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
odds are he wouldn't rule out nuking them just because the radiation would likely kill off his own people as well as the Kuwaitis (not to mention US troops still stationed there).
...and kills him and all his supporters along with wherever the wind blows....and for what? he hates freedom?
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Now, just because we got intel wrong does not mean it was no longer a reason. Let's say a friend told you that one of your classmates was planning on getting a gun, for the sole purpose of killing you and some of your friends. Would you sit back and wait to see what happened, or would you actually DO something (call the police, etc). That's a smaller version of what happened with Iraq.
i cannot answer this....im already more stupid for having read it.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
[The following quote is taken from the Annenburg Political Fact Check, article title of "Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying"]Now, honestly tell me that a man who has made it VERY clear that he despises the US as well as our allies, who we have reason to believe was actively trying to obtain Uranium for nuclear weapons, didn't pose a threat.
Whether or not we found nukes, the FACT remains that at the time; we had every reason to believe he was trying to build them. If that's not enough for you, I'm apoligize on the behalf of the Coalition Intelligence agencies for not employing psychics to look forward a few years.
talking trash about the u.s. is not a warrant for invasion. you need to look up "fact" the next time you feel like childishly quoting the dictionary to someone in a debate, and stop parroting the same attempt at a point over and over and wrongfully tagging "fact" onto pure speculation and possible baldface lies which lead us to war.
kuwaits oil reserves almost equal the size of iraq's. they would have never nuked it. we were assured that they knew for a fact that he was seking nukes and had ties to al qaeda.
We were assured for a fact he was seeking nukes, because our own intel was reported accurate by British Intelligence.
As for the al-Quaida ties, that's one of the most often trumpeted "lies" by your side. "Ties" can mean any sort of connection, no matter how weak:
"What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Sarawak, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
talking trash about the u.s. is not a warrant for invasion.
...boy I hope you're never in any position of influence in politics. There was reason to believe he was seeking nukes, already hated Americans, and you would have preferred until what? He used one?
you need to look up "fact" the next time you feel like childishly quoting the dictionary to someone in a debate, and stop parroting the same attempt at a point over and over and wrongfully tagging "fact" onto pure speculation and possible baldface lies which lead us to war.
It's somewhat ironic that this is coming from someone citing the reason to invade Iraq was oil, and citing an article that said the reason to STAY in Iraq was to keep the oilfields out of terrorist control as "proof."
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
We were assured for a fact he was seeking nukes, because our own intel was reported accurate by British Intelligence.
again look up "fact".
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
As for the al-Quaida ties, that's one of the most often trumpeted "lies" by your side. "Ties" can mean any sort of connection, no matter how weak:
i said it was untrue (fact, a point later conceded...or rather disowned by the administration)
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
...boy I hope you're never in any position of influence in politics. There was reason to believe he was seeking nukes, already hated Americans, and you would have preferred until what? He used one?
the french tend to hate americans. should we invade them? obviously if another nation openly protests the u.s. they must be dangerous, right?
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
It's somewhat ironic that this is coming from someone citing the reason to invade Iraq was oil, and citing an article that said the reason to STAY in Iraq was to keep the oilfields out of terrorist control as "proof."
i said that oil remains the only constant for why we police a civil war.
i guess evading points is your specialty. i could quote myself, but during my stay at kmc i have learned one constant in particular:
if you are forced to quote yourself in a debate to avoid having words put in your mouth, it will not end on an intelligent note regardless so there is no point.
again look up "fact".
Better idea: stop whining and actually go find something to prove he had absolutely no intentions of ever having nukes or WMDs.
Also, it's a FACT that we had reason to believe he was. If you want to claim that's false too, go find any credible source of intel (preferably government intelligence reports, whether it's ours or another nations) FROM THAT TIMEFRAME that disproves it. You're supposed to be disproving whether or not we had reason to believe it at the time the invasion was being planned, not whether he had them or not.
the french tend to hate americans. should we invade them?
No, and when's the last time they invaded their neighbors? They're about as hostile as a white flag, where Saddam's Iraq had already proven that supervision was required. But hey, you'll probably ignore this too...
i said that oil remains the only constant for why we police a civil war.
I know you have. Problem is, you also said "we did" in regards to going to war for oil. Back on page two, when this whole thing started. You even said it twice with your link to that Washington Post article in between.
Or does that not exist now?
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Better idea: stop whining and actually go find something to prove he had absolutely no intentions of ever having nukes or WMDs.
the burden of proof is not to prove the negative ffs. why do so many people fail to grasp such a logical and basic rule of argument?
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Also, it's a FACT that we had reason to believe he was.
no it is not.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
If you want to claim that's false too, go find any credible source of intel (preferably government intelligence reports, whether it's ours or another nations) FROM THAT TIMEFRAME that disproves it. You're supposed to be disproving whether or not we had reason to believe it at the time the invasion was being planned, not whether he had them or not.
the intelligence was shotty at best and ehen investigated was found to be just that. doesnt directly imply that anyone was lying, but certainly that the administration really wanted to sell this war in spite of proper investigation.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
No, and when's the last time they invaded their neighbors? They're about as hostile as a white flag, where Saddam's Iraq had already proven that supervision was required. But hey, you'll probably ignore this too...
they invaded kuwait. we didnt support that. we drove them back. the war ended. no more attempts to take over theur neighbors.
yeah, hussein was scum. im not trying to argue that. all i am saing is that iraq factually posed no threat to the u.s. FACT. who thought what and why is irrelevant. we invaded, we whacked the boss, we tore the nation apart and found no wmd's and not even signs of an attempt to creat wmd's. we're they just mistaken and not lying about it all? anything is possible. that is why you should be careful with 'fact' or rather 'FACT!!11' because your abuse of the word produces flatout mistruths.
Originally posted by Seth Wynd
I know you have. Problem is, you also said "we did" in regards to going to war for oil. Back on page two, when this whole thing started. You even said it twice with your link to that Washington Post article in between.
given the lack of concrete evidence (and denying the blatantly obvious) i will concede the point that that's the reason for going to war. now before you jump up and down and act like you've won the thread, know that this proves nothing of any of your points. all it proves is lack of concrete evidence, while denying the downing street memos, the scooter libby/cheny/rove sdandal which is unfolding, the simple fact that we supported saddam knowing he was committing those attrocities which you site...all these occurances/situations which only point to one conclusion...i will forsake those for the benefit of the discussion:
there is, as of yet, no concrete proof that we were lead to war on lies. however it is concrete that the reasons for going to war were debunked.
this could simply imply mistake and miscalculation as well as a failed and reckless theory on regime change. (welcomed as liberators) however you cannot spin this into "it's a FACT that we had reason to believe he was" because we factually had no concrete evidence. its an impossible and tragically desperate leap in logic on your part.
:edit: look, have your last word, because this conversation is pointless. you're just looking for ways to twist logic and leave the administration not only in the clear of any guilt/fault, but completely validated for invading a sovereign nation based on faulty intelligence and nothing more. all this time and you failed to prove the positive (how did hussein pose a threat to the u.s.) and demand that i prove the negative. its just a trainwreck of backwards logic and i dont want to read it anymore. maybe we'll pick up on this chat when you're ready to discuss the topic soundly instead of trying to win threads through convoluded reasoning and false-fact parroting.
Positive or Negative in who´s eyes?
In the Power hungry people of the NWO who are controlling everything´s point of view its all going well. More weapons can be sold, unemployment can be brought down a bit by sending poor folk as cannon fodder to Iraq and elswhere to get killed, all the islamic nuts are swarming into Iraq and Afgahnistan to kill a few "Ami´s" keeping them away from the US mainland.
I the majority of the worlds point of view a VERY negative way.