Wacks the political Bee's Nest

Daseal

Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists yet we don't touch them. How about an invasion there. Oh, wait. Cheap oil, they own 7% of our country, and the fact that we have way too many contacts there keep us out.

USA should be invaded because Bush killed hundreds of innocent civilians? One way or the other Guy. Can't have both.

That Guy

umm, wtf daseal? i was just stating that saddam had the means, the history and the intent, because it was stated that he didnt. I never said anything about the morality of the situation, sorry you misunderstood.

saudi arabia is also not openly hostile, has not tried to assassinate a US president, or used chemical weapons on a foreign nation or its own people. And if you listen to al jezerra (sp?) i'm sure many people there would agree with you on invading the US :P

That Guy

The oil arguement seems to be used as a crutch when no valid point can be found. Apparently you think we invaded Iraq because of oil, but we refuse to invade Saudi Arabia because of oil??? asymetric arguements don't make a lot of sense in this case...

SmootSmack

Exactly, we get a good chunk of our oil from Canada and Venezuela. In fact in 2003, we got most of our oil from Canada. So why not go invade those countries?

__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

illdefined

using chemical weapons on a hostile neighbor or your own people is a COMPLETELY other ballgame from threatening the US. plus, the UN made him destroy those weapons, and looks like he did. back then the UN wasnt irrelevant.

what terrorists did he keep and train? dont say al-aqaeda, because thats not true. was he despicable? absolutely. was he a threat to the US?

N O

intelligence services knew the quality (lack of) of what they had. come on. they had hunches ("group think") and made bad judgement calls with a trigger happy president with an agenda encouraging them to think that way. too bad the congressional report on the administration's role in exaggerating evidence comes AFTER the election...

talk about hindsight.

That Guy

saddam had at least one junked body of a 747 that was used to train on (hijacking) in the country. he knew about it, but chose not to stop it... that doesn't mean he knew and talked to all involved, but it was going on and saddam let it continue. Again, there is evidence that chemicals were being moved in water trucks not long before the invasion occurred. I would consider chemical weapons and such training as threats... whether they were big enough to merit an invasion is a different subject. But i would say planning assassination attempts on foreign leaders and having the money to back them would make them at least a minor threat

as far as the report coming out after the election... it'd be stupid of him to let it out before if its going to cite him as responsible. That may suck, but unfortunately he isn't the first or last to do something of that sort (N korea is waiting till after our elections to hold talks so that they can try to get a softer president to deal with)...

illdefined

what was the terrorist organization and had they attacked the US before? if not they could be more akin to the private militias we have training in our own country.


this chemical evidence you speak of wasn't anywhere near conclusive. Bush wouldnt let us stop hearing about it if it were. one thing that was conclusive was that even if he did have more than university sarin gas, he had no means to deliver them in any meaningful quantity across the world to threaten us. really this is grasping at straws and not even a 1/1000th of what Bush and admin. swore existed to us and congress.


this alone should worry you to no end and explicity make you vote against him. to delay a bi-partisan report that proves his administration's manipulations of intelligence for their own agenda till after his election? that's ok because other people like the N.KOREAN DICTATOR do the same kind of thing???

That Guy

Did i state that it was okay? i said specificly that it sucks right there, I don't know how I could make that more clear.

kerry's campaign had someone stealing high security files, IS THAT OKAY????? no, its not, but shit happens and no ones perfect or accountable for the thousands working on their behalf.

and again, whether the evidence supported invasion is not a question i answered, though you seem to think that i did... i was just pointing out that there was at least *some* validity to such statements. Honestly, if you've ever been to a desert, it looks the same for miles around... very barren, and even if there were something buried there, it'd be very difficult to find (though you figure a local or two would've offered up locations for cash by now).

btw, how do you know what it proves? did you read it? I thought you said it wasn't released yet. I rather hear it and make a decision than just assume blatant guilt. Or else I could just as easily say something like it proves that this is all really clinton's fault, and i bet it'd get you a little upset, and may very well prove unfounded later on.

illdefined

guilty, i havent read it. just trying to use some FOREsight this time, based on the record of this administration thus far (and the fact he wants it delayed), instead of the hindsight that people on this board are so dismissive of.

That Guy

that's not foresight though, that's speculation why i've been dismissive of hindsight is because, at the time the build up was occurring, very few people were speaking out against invading, and now many of the people that agreed think its a bad idea. There's no problem with changing minds, but faulting people for a view that was shared (at the time) is a bit tough to swallow (though you very well may have said its a horrible idea back then, i kinda figured our reconstruction would be bad based on afghanistan).

illdefined

you kidding? TONS of people thought the war (especially the approach to it) was a very bad idea, and were VERY vocal about it. if you mean in congress, the nation was going to war with or without congressional approval, so politically they had to acquiesce and portray a unified front.

i'd say what Bush ultimately did was speculate also, only with thousands of lives at stake. a not-so-educated guess.

Sammy Baugh Fan

I was for the War and gld it went forward.
Did I want people to sie not but I want the world at large to be a better and safer place.
It is. We disagree

peace

__________________
Check out Mike Hedrick - The Next Food Network Star.
Please Click and give me a Thumbs Up and Positive Comment. Thanks

Sammy Baugh Fan

Typed in the dark
Sorry

__________________
Check out Mike Hedrick - The Next Food Network Star.
Please Click and give me a Thumbs Up and Positive Comment. Thanks