The Truth about Iraq

[local 12 proud]

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/

MYTH:
Since we did not find weapons of mass destruction, going into Iraq was a waste.

FACT:
Iraqis don't understand this argument. They point out that Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction.
By some estimates, Saddam tortured and killed five times as many people as died in the Hiroshima blast.

 

[KCFlyer]

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/

That's great local 12...let me ask you this...if Bush had just told the truth and said that the reason we must attack Iraq is because he was an evil dictator to his people, how much support would he received from Congress? Would he have received any support from you? After all...it's a country chock full o muslims...and we all know by now how you feel about them...I mean four threads with I dunno how many posts by YOU about how bad Muslims and Islam is...and here we go freeing 30 million of them.

 

[Ch. 12]

Wow! The fiction writers that were exposed for not being truthful in the swiftboat campaign are back! Nothing like putting unsubstantiated numbers and "facts" out there, claiming they are facts, and backing up nothing. At least the "biased" media (even including FOX) use scientific polls and cite sources.

Gotta love the Internet...let's anyone pretend to tell the truth and as PT Barnum said...one is born every minute...so there are plenty to suck up this stuff, eh local 12?

 

[Flying Titan]

Wow! What a bunch of garbage that website is!

Fact: Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed since the US invasion to liberate them (because we care soooo much about them). The highest estimate was just published in the highly-respected medical journal, The Lancet. This study estimates 655,000 Iraqi deaths during this period. President bush estimates the number at 30,000. Sadly, the 30,000 number can be reached easily by just counting news reports of deaths over the last handful of months. It is not at all credible. The 655,000 number may be high, but even if it's half ot that, then this is an unmitigated disaster.

Fact: While the president focused US power on Iraq, he essentially conceded the real war against the terrorists who actually attacked us and those who actually gave them safe harbor in Afghanistan. We didn't put enough American forces on the ground and allowed Afghan warlords to fight our most important battles. In the battle for Tora Bora, there were fewer than 200 US troops on the ground, according to several major US and European publications. There were more journalists there than US soldiers and marines according to many of these reports.

Fact: In Iraq, we attacked a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction, had no history of attacking the US, and had no ties between its government and Al Qaeda. All of these assertions are backed-up by numerous US government reports which have been widely published.

As an added bonus, we're spending hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars for to pay for this mistake and can't currently mount a credible military threat against North Korea or Iran - a country that actually has NUCLEAR weapons and another which makes no secret of its plans to build one (and "wipe Israel from the map").

Anyone who believes in personal or professional responsibility wouldn't support the fools who could make this many huge mistakes while running the world's only superpower, yet, clearly some still do.

Funny, I don't see these facts listed anywhere on that pathetic excuse for a website.

 

[Seatacus]

Fact: In Iraq, we attacked a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction, had no history of attacking the US,

Does shooting missiles at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone count?

 

[KCFlyer]

Does shooting missiles at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone count?

Perhaps Bush should have sold us the war that way.

 

[Seatacus]

Perhaps Bush should have sold us the war that way.

I agree.........as a comunicator President Bush is weak. Have you noticed that when he does go out and try to explain things about this war his poll numbers rise?

 

[Flying Titan]

Does shooting missiles at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone count?

Certainly not in the same league as 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, the African embassy bombings, or other terrorist attacks to which they were linked at various points by members of the Bush administration. (all proved to be incorrect, BTW.)

Those anemic rocket firings were just further evidence of how truly weak Saddam Hussein's abilities were.

Our prior policy of containment and inspections was working - even though Saddam Hussein was trying to resist.

Meanwhile, we should have launched an all-out attack on Afghanistan and truly wiped out the Taliban and Al Qaeda's leadership, including UBL. Simply put, Bush blew it by devoting so much of our military to an unnecessary invasion of Iraq and not commiting the force needed to get the job done in Afghanistan.

 

[Seatacus]

Those anemic rocket firings were just further evidence of how truly weak Saddam Hussein's abilities were.

You said they had not attacked us and that it was a fact. And now that I pointed this out you call it anemic rocket firings. If you were flying over Iraq and someone attacked you with a missile I doubt if you would call it anemic. Why can't you just say "OK, I was wrong about not being attacked". Did you make up that fact or was the truth too inconvenient for your argument. You want to know what is "anemic"? The United Nations, that's what....Talk about a useless organization. How could they pass so many resolutions on Iraq and then do nothing? Does the U.N. even have a reason to exist? What good have they done for world peace?

 

[Ch. 12]

Talk about a useless organization. How could they pass so many resolutions on Iraq and then do nothing?

THEY DID NOTHING B/C THERE REALLY WEREN'T ANY WMDs. Should they have set up an invasion of Iraq based on circumstantial evidence? No. I would say that our current administration is a useless organization...and a DANGEROUS one, too...b/c they DID do something when the intelligence wasn't there and they have killed scores of thousands.

Does the U.N. even have a reason to exist? What good have they done for world peace?

The UN is not a sovereign entity and is actually in existance to preserve peace...not wage war. When you have rebel cowboys from Texas that only want to demean the organization b/c the rebels are against peace (since war and fear is their platform...and the oil industry), sure the UN is powerless. But what people who act ignorant about the UN fail to realize is that the UN is not a country and the UN's goal is not to invade countries. If that IS your platform, then the UN will seem useless to you. And if you go against anything that the UN decides and you are the most powerful country in the world, it will make the UN look pathetic...and THAT is what Bushie has wanted all along. The UN's peace-oriented philosophy is a direct (and the single most critical) threat to Rove's war and fear campaign that is aimed at keeping GOP power. Unfortunately the public is waking up to the tremendous negative effect it has had (deaths of thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of non-americans) and the GOP will only be able to prop up the Foley diversion for so long. The great thing, though, is it restores my confidence in the American people to see them realizing and reacting to the GOP corruption that they have been under for so long now.

 

[Seatacus]

THEY DID NOTHING B/C THERE REALLY WEREN'T ANY WMDs.

Any idea what their plan is for North Korea (nukes/WMDs)?
What is their plan for Darfur?
What was their plan for Rwanda, Somalia?

 

[KCFlyer]

Any idea what their plan is for North Korea (nukes/WMDs)?
What is their plan for Darfur?
What was their plan for Rwanda, Somalia?

Couldn't tell you anymore because the US has pretty much pulled out of the UN. IT's us against the world...just like Bush wanted it. Hail Ceasar.

 

[Seatacus]

Couldn't tell you anymore because the US has pretty much pulled out of the UN.

Why is it up to the US? Do we have to do everything?

 

[Flying Titan]

You said they had not attacked us and that it was a fact. And now that I pointed this out you call it anemic rocket firings. If you were flying over Iraq and someone attacked you with a missile I doubt if you would call it anemic. Why can't you just say "OK, I was wrong about not being attacked". Did you make up that fact or was the truth too inconvenient for your argument. You want to know what is "anemic"? The United Nations, that's what....Talk about a useless organization. How could they pass so many resolutions on Iraq and then do nothing? Does the U.N. even have a reason to exist? What good have they done for world peace?

How many planes were actually shot down? The number NONE comes to mind. If you want to nit pick and say that I'm wrong... then fine. Are YOU saying that those unsuccessful rocket launches were worth the war and the
hundreds of thousands of deaths that have followed???

As for your incoherent attack on the UN...seems like they did a better job of finding and destroying Iraq's weapons than we've done since we invaded.

Face reality, Iraq was contained and under control. Iraq did NOT launch terrorist attacks against the United States. If the best you can come up with is the "No Fly Zone" then you're making my case. Compare that to the attacks launched by the Taliban and Al Qaeda...and explain why we sent hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq and a small fraction of that number to fight with one hand tied behind their back against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. How about actually addressing all of the relevant points of my original post?

 

[KCFlyer]

Why is it up to the US? Do we have to do everything?

It doesn't...but as the sole superpower, you can engender a lot of support if you're "diplomacy" consists of more than showing the rest of them a middle finger and telling them "you're either with us or agin' us", as we did with Iraq. When the vast majority of the worlds major powers tell you to wait before launching an all out war, and your response is pretty much what I described, then when problems crop up elsewhere, and the other major powers figure you're going to do whatever you damn well please, they'll leave the problem solving up to you. Sort of defeats the "United" part of the nations.