Who won the debate?

[matt-o]

Ha. The argument has been, well all these terrorist cells have sprung up - or whatever, making things more dangerous. Newsflash: They did not spring out of the ground magically, they were already there! When Saddam was in power, do you think they were crocheting all day? Look how much effort they can dedicate to fighting us in Iraq... what do you think they were doing before this? Playing on their Ataris and going to mosque I'd imagine. We were chasing around Nazis for several years after we took Germany, fighting them for a while - but eventually they go away... it takes time. Iraq will be similar.

after the war started these people came from other countries to fight us, as well as being recruited from ex-saddam loyalists, they werent already there, we attracted them and gave them a reason to fight us. the fact that we even invaded iraq proves their ideas that we hate islamic nations right, therefore giving them more and more reasons to hate us. if we just backed off with the troops and tried giving these countried aid like we do to the asians, latin americans, africans, and especially the jews in isreal they might not hate us anymore

also the nazis were a world power with millions of devoted followers, unlike saddams regime who was hated by a good percent of the iraqis, its been almost a year since "major fighting" ended and bush declared the "mission accomplished" also i assume that the casualties of fighing the nazis after the war slowly dropped, not steadily rose, as in iraq, this isnt gonna end till we change what were doing, and bush wont do that

[matt-o]

Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism. To deny this is to have optical anal inversion.

How many damned times must I say this.

Iraq had/has numerous contacts with Al Qaeda. No one, NO ONE, NOOOOOO ONNNNEEEEE, has said they had anything to do with 9-11. Are you people daft or something????

it was reported that osama bin laden personally vetoed the idea of allying with saddam hussein, ill look for it online and repost with a link when i find the site honestly not sure on that, i just think i heard it on the news about 10 months or so ago

i also agree with carnifex, since saddam didnt have weapons of mass destrucion as bush lied and lied about, and also had way too much on his plate in the middle east (especially inside iraq) to overcme the sanctions and boycotts on him and do anything to america, and as i said before he did not sponsor any terrorists

the insurgents in iraq are the remnants of saddams army, not terroists, there is a difference and their recruits fighting to try to regain the power saddam gave them, they are fighting like they are because thats the only way they can, if they got into major battles with our troops they would be crushed

[FactsOfLife]

Kerry once again shows he couldn't find his backside with both hands....

[FactsOfLife]

it was reported that osama bin laden personally vetoed the idea of allying with saddam hussein, ill look for it online and repost with a link when i find the site honestly not sure on that, i just think i heard it on the news about 10 months or so ago

i also agree with carnifex, since saddam didnt have weapons of mass destrucion as bush lied and lied about, and also had way too much on his plate in the middle east (especially inside iraq) to overcme the sanctions and boycotts on him and do anything to america, and as i said before he did not sponsor any terrorists

the insurgents in iraq are the remnants of saddams army, not terroists, there is a difference and their recruits fighting to try to regain the power saddam gave them, they are fighting like they are because thats the only way they can, if they got into major battles with our troops they would be crushed

Then explain the presense of Al Zarqawi please.

[matt-o]

they aren't a native iraqi organization, for the most part these people ignore the borders, they had to ties to saddam, and he is fighting in a war against, against soldiers not civilians, so at the moment they are not commiting acts of terror, they are using guerilla tactics, i just think terrorist is becoming a buzz word bush is using to get people to support him, if their terrorists they have to be destroyed by any means possible no matter who suffers but if they were freedom fighters or enemy soldiers people would want to negotiate and try to end the fighing without as harsh of penalties to them, thats what i meant

[-Carnifex-]

How's the sand taste?

I don't know, you could probably tell better than I.

Are we safer with Saddam gone? Yes.

Are we safer with the new terrorists? No

Would we be safer had we gone after Iran or UBL instead? Yes, very much so.

Would we be safer if the Suadi's didn't have America in their pockets? Yes.

[FactsOfLife]

I don't know, you could probably tell better than I.

Are we safer with Saddam gone? Yes.

No, I don't believe we are safer with Saddam gone.

Who are you really? This is John Kerry isn't it? Come on you can tell us....

[-Carnifex-]

Who are you really? This is John Kerry isn't it? Come on you can tell us....

Err, I apologize, I meant to couple the two in that sequence together.

[FactsOfLife]

[-Carnifex-]

Ahahaha, that's great.

[cphilip]

it was reported that osama bin laden personally vetoed the idea of allying with saddam hussein, ill look for it online and repost with a link when i find the site honestly not sure on that, i just think i heard it on the news about 10 months or so ago

i also agree with carnifex, since saddam didnt have weapons of mass destrucion as bush lied and lied about, and also had way too much on his plate in the middle east (especially inside iraq) to overcme the sanctions and boycotts on him and do anything to america, and as i said before he did not sponsor any terrorists

the insurgents in iraq are the remnants of saddams army, not terroists, there is a difference and their recruits fighting to try to regain the power saddam gave them, they are fighting like they are because thats the only way they can, if they got into major battles with our troops they would be crushed

Where to start....

1) At one time it is believed he did and in fact they both did. But in he end they restarted talks. Nothing seemed to come of them in the end before things went down. At least this is what the 911 commission reports. Talks were held again AFTER they earlier decided not to cooperate with each other. One can only assume they were rethinking that or why the talks resumed? Also a very quick reminder is that Saddam openly hosted the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers (terrorists) in Iraq to present them with "rewards" for the service of thier sons and daughters in bombing Israeli citizends. This is plain and simply "support of terrorists". And its not the only example. Al Quieda had trained there. Al Quieda had started back into discussions with Iraq and the fear here is they would eventually find some sort of support there. As they had long in the past. Gaining access to knowledge about how to make weapons was one fear. Not just getting them pre-made. And not just Al Queda. Any such group.

2) Saddam DID have weapons of Mass destruction. He used them. And sometimes on his own people. That is a fact. And he never was able to nor did he want to prove he got rid of them. As he was ordered to do. And clearly was seeking to restart making them again. This was clear in the report yesterday. He, it now seems, did not want to verify the lack of them because he feared Iran would take advantage of that. THis is what was reported yesterday as well. He decided to decieve the UN on this for his own purposes. He gambled and lost. He was counting on Russia, Germany and France to see that we would not go in there as he knew they had been aiding him on diverting Oil money from food program. So he did have them, every intelligence agency in the world thought he still probably had them and he deliberately wanted us to think is. No one lied. They were decieved. All of them. Bush and Kerry and everyone. All over the world.


3) there are both. Insurgents are made up of all sorts of groups. Religeous Militants that want power. Old regime members that want power and incoming Militants that are terrorists as well. Terrorists are people who use terrorist tactics of fear to extract thier control. It makes no matter what thier background was or is now... once you resort to terrorist tactics to influence a matter you are a Terrorist. Plain and simple. No argument. I think you missunderstand what a terrorist really is. These people are using terrorist tactics to try and obtain power. So they are all terrorists.

[PissedGodzilla]

2) Saddam DID have weapons of Mass destruction. He used them. And sometimes on his own people. That is a fact. And he never was able to nor did he want to prove he got rid of them. As he was ordered to do. And clearly was seeking to restart making them again. This was clear in the report yesterday. He, it now seems, did not want to verify the lack of them because he feared Iran would take advantage of that. THis is what was reported yesterday as well. He decided to decieve the UN on this for his own purposes. He gambled and lost. He was counting on Russia, Germany and France to see that we would not go in there as he knew they had been aiding him on diverting Oil money from food program. So he did have them, every intelligence agency in the world thought he still probably had them and he deliberately wanted us to think is. No one lied. They were decieved. All of them. Bush and Kerry and everyone. All over the world.

Saddam had WMD's PRE-First Iraq war, AND NEVER SINCE, according to Pres. Bush's own weapons inspector.


According to Pres. Bush's own CIA, THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAUEDA

His own people are telling him this.

The fact is the UN sanctions WERE WORKING!!!!!!!!!!!!! Peaceful negotiations were WORKING... he had no means to attain any of the WMD goals he may have had... you want to tell me he was the only guy that wants wmd's? I want one too does that make me a terrorist?? i don't think so... lol wanting WMD's and having them are completely different things.

Now onto my next point. whatever happened to "The buck stops here"??? who were we decieved by?? the intelligence community of PRES. BUSH..


He is responsible, as President of the United States for the people he trusts.... he had terrible judgement in who he had in the intellegence community.

He, as Pres., failed the people of the United States of America in this regard.

It's time for a change, and on Nov. 2nd, the people will have their say.

[FactsOfLife]

The sanctions were working?

To do what? Ensure that the oil for food monies were funneled properly into Saddam's coffers?

If you had taken the time to actually read the content of the report, instead of regurgitating demorate spin, you'd realise that it does NOT say what you just claimed it says.

Saddam was being told by the French Governement, and by the French Ambassador to the UN specifically, that he had nothing to worry about from the US, because France was going to VETO ANY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ.

Saddam KNEW that if he waited long enough he was going to get the sanctions lifted and restart his WMD programs. He KNEW that if he continued to divert the monies from the OFF program and kept starving his people that the UN would eventually cave, and remove the sanctions. Which the report SPECIFICALLY points out would have been the needed catalyst for Saddam to restart ALL of his WMD programs.

We KNOW he had WMD's when he gassed the Kurds. We have found numerous examples of forbidden weapons like the Bi-Mixture Serin shells. We have found large stockpiles of precursor materials.

So if there are none in Iraq now, where did they go?

Now, I have a direct question for all you libs crowing about this report:

Which argument are you going to now give up? That he never had WMD's or that he was supplied WMD's by the US?

Can't have it both ways kids...

[FactsOfLife]

He is responsible, as President of the United States for the people he trusts.... he had terrible judgement in who he had in the intellegence community.

You do realise that they guy who told him WMD's in Iraq was George Tenet right? Remember which administration he was held over from?

Oh yeah, that'd be Bill Clinton's...

Course that little detail doesn't matter right?

[Hasty8]

I've been trying to stay out of the more political debates but I simply cannot here. Not because of any great love for Bush but out of a greater love for the truth.

In Godzilla's above rant he forget two vital pieces of information.

First, Tenet was appointed as head of the CIA by Clinton. as was then-head of the FBI Louis J. Freeh.

Now add to the fact that Clinton gave extremely lighthanded responses to the terrorist attacks against America and it's worldwide presence in 1993 <b>AND</b> 1995 <b>AND</b> 1996 <b>AND</b> 1998 <b>AND</b> 2000 and you can see a clear line of how the democratic party is ineffective in handling just about any threat.

For concrete proof of this let's take it from Kerry:

"I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."

John Kerry said this on the Larry King Live show July 8th, 2004
Transcript

Now here is what I find revolting about Kerry supporters. They are totally blind.

The second plane hit the WTC a 9:03AM and the Pentagon was hit at 9:43AM. Bush was addressing the nation at 9:31AM.

By Kerry's own words he, and the rest of the Democratic party leadership were completely knocked dumb by the event and simply sat in a daze.

Face it. With the exception of Roosevelt, there has never been a decent Deomcratic President during a time of war.

And don't even think of saying that we started this war. The religious zagnuts started this war.

Now, in regards to Godzilla's comment that the sanctions were working.

MSNBC article on "The Report"

I'm not sure what report you were reading but Duelfer himself said that Saddam told him that he [Saddam] fully intended to pursue WMD's as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Why do liberals always insist on waiting until the gun is loaded, cocked and against our heads?