Things I'd like to point out to the democrats

It's called sarcasm. I was using a form of it.

What I was getting at is that the democrats all seem to say that we should have never gone to Iraq b/c they had nothing to do with Al Queda. As if Sadaam was doing NOTHING wrong.

 

No, the democrats are saying Bush shouldn't have let the weapons inspectors out and went to war..that's what they are saying.. Look at this war can you actually say it's for the best? It's so sad, I can't bear to read any more about the killings and the beheadings, and this one guy now there pleading with Tony Blair because he doesn't want to die..I know we can't negotiate with those monsters, still doesn't make my heart hurt any less :/

 

Alright lets go with this argument, So you think Democrats think that we never should have gone to Iraq b/c they had nothing to do with Al Queda. As if Sadaam was doing NOTHING wrong.

1. I think everyone you talk to will recognize the fact that Saddamm was a bad guy. But the US doesnt go to war over bad guys. We go to war when someone attacks us or when someone gets Nukes. Neither of those things were done. The closest we go to finding "WMD" was finding Mustard gas which is for the most part non-leathal, just an extremely debilitating skin irratant. They do not even have rockets to fire anymore, or the Helicopters they bought from us and used against the Sunnis.

2. Close to the first topic, why then if we do attack cause he is a bad guy havent we gone after North Korea? What about Iran, who is much closer to having Nuclear weapons than Iraq would have been in 10 years. Why didnt we attack Africa during Aparteid?

3. Why didnt we start a full out war in Afganistan? Whats going on in Afganistan, what happened to the guy who attacked us? I can give you a play by play of what happened in Iraq daily but do not even have a clue whats going on in Afganistan.

 

In tonight's debate John Kerry said what I was saying on these forums for a long time, and no one seemed to have this information. George Bush didn't send troops to find Bin Ladin or Al-Queda in Afghanistan. You know who he sent? El-Shaab, Afghani warlords. Why? Because our troops were wrapped up in a pre-emptive strike with a country against whom we had no incriminating evidence and because he didn't/doesn't care shit for a war against terrorism. Bush cares about a neocon imperialist agenda and his oil investments. This is why oil reserves were highly protected, and nuclear plants weren't. He simply isn't interested in safety of either the American people or the Iraqi people. That's not where his personal stake lies.

Weapons of mass destruction were the first Republican cry, and we actually went to war pre-emptively on this very thin, very sketchy information. The information on which we based our case for war, and ultimately upon which we based our pre-emptive strike was given to the C.I.A. by an anyonymous source called "Codename:Curveball". You don't pre-emptively strike someone based upon this type of information. You exhaust your nation's investigative power for the purpose of finding more legitimate information. Then, we strike Iraq pre-emptively and when no weapons of mass destruction are found, George Bush claims that we found "weapons related operational facilities". Okay, so what is that? A factory full of empty tanks dating back to 1991? Yes, that's exactly what it was. You don't strike someone on faulty information, and you certainly don't try to legitimize your mistake by saying you found factories and tanks, and that these are justification for attacking a country.

Many Republicans will argue that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons shipped to Sudan. Okay, we found no weapons there either, and that argument is pure speculation. That is basically what Moon is saying. "Hussein had the ability to have chemical weapons, he hated the United States and was sitting on a lot of money.". That narrows it down to about 17 or 18 countries. Yes, we should invade any country that has any type of power that also harbors bad feelings toward America. We'll have troops splayed all over the middle and far East. Beyond years-old, speculatory ties to men like Afghani Bi'aa El Shabatt, we could find no real connection of Saddam to Al-Quada, and therefore to any 9/11 involvement. Plainly and simply, you don't pre-emptively strike on anonymous tips and justify that later with empty factories with "potential". You know what "potential" tells me? It tells me you're speculating. That's what it tells me. You don't attack on speculation, and you don't justify flawed intelligence with further speculation.

This was, hands-down, the biggest geopolitical mistake in the past decade.

--Refute away...

 

​

Moonjava: you do realize you are posting in a HIPPY FOURM. In case you didn't realize, hippies tend to have a negative opinion of Bush because he has done stuff against our beliefs (you know, the whole peace/earth/love of all shapes and sexes/anti-conservatism etc). We have fixed beliefs and no point you argue, however logical you may believe it is, will change that. Give it up. ​

Those arguing against Moonjava: you do realize you are posting against a NEO-CON WHO IS FOOLISHLY ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE HER PRO-BUSH OPINIONS ON A HIPPY FORUM. Neo-cons tend to have a postive opinion of Bush because he is, in fact a neo-con. She has fixed beliefs and no point you may argue, however logical you may think it is, will change that. Give it up. ​

 

I just had to ask.....since when is it only democrats who can hate Bush/care about this country?

 

It's not. But it's Moonjava's thread. Little kids really have no idea what they're talking about. I think they should at least graduate 5th grade before they try to get involved in politics. Maybe next year, my little Moonjava.

And we don't "hate" here. That's hipocrytical.