1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Iraq War: Pretty much the opposite of a war on terror

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by dog428, Sep 25, 2006.

  1. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    You know, dog, I found you amusing at first, but now you're just proving to be sad. Clinton huffed and puffed and did nothing. Bush finally backed up all of Clinton's empty words -- words that served no purpose at all except to get the inspectors thrown out of Iraq by Saddam.

    Clinton accomplished nothing with his threats except to make us a laughingstock around the world. But based on how you post, I gather you like to be a laughingstock. Go back and look at the words of all your lefty heroes on Saddam and his WMDs from 1998. Then ask yourself if you really believe that Saddam simply decided to get rid of them on his own. You know it, I know it and anyone with an IQ above 60 -- oh, wait, maybe that leaves you out -- knows Saddam had WMDs and was seeking more. That you are now ignoring the words of everyone -- EVERYONE! -- from 1998 just shows how much you're willing to lie to cover your weak ass.

    But since you'll deny everything you know ...


    Just a tidbit here for you. I'll be glad to provide plenty more

    "Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel."

    And how about a little bit on the WMDs?

    Here's the link:

    And a part of the article by Ben Johnson from June, 2004:
    The assertion that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction prior to last year’s liberation has been rendered absurd – by United Nations weapons inspectors.

    Demetrius Perricos, acting chairman of UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), recently disclosed that his inspectors have been busily tracking shipments of illicit Iraqi WMD components around the world.

    The Associated Press announced that UNMOVIC inspectors have found dozens of engines from banned al-Samoud 2 (SA2) missiles, which were shipped out of Iraq as “scrap metal.” Most recently, UNMOVIC agents found 20 SA-2 engines in Jordan, along with a great deal of other WMD materials. Officials discovered an identical engine in a Rotterdam port in the Netherlands and believe as many as a dozen extra SA-2 missile engines alone have been transported out of Iraq and remain unaccounted for. Inspectors believe at least some of these engines have also reached Turkey and hope to search Turkish ports in the near future.

    dog, you can keep lying all you want. The left hates Bush so much that it has an awful lot invested in the lies. I've come to expect nothing better.
  2. Front Page Mag?
    David Horowitz's little vanity press.
    OK, now I'm laughing at the sediments in this argument.
    I didn't know the Heritage Foundation had a pre-school.
  3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Its crystal clear that the liberals do not have the stomach to fight the war on terror. Bush layed out his blue print to fight war on terror - 1/29/02 . At that time those on both sides of isle applauded his ideas.

    Bush has stayed the course. He said it would not be easy. He said it would be costly. He said it would not be over soon.

    Now the liberals no longer want to fight the war on terror even though its a fight that is not near won.

    To paraphrase Yogi - "Iraq - no one goes there any more that's where all the terrorists are."
  5. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    And that, in one column, is more skepticism concerning Iraq from the so-called liberal media than there were in the months prior to the invasion about the administration's WMD claims.

    Day late, meet dollar short.

    Nice find, Lyman.
  6. kingcreole

    kingcreole Active Member

    BT, I'm going to do you one better - the war on terror is something that can't be won. Terrorism was there long before we went to Iraq. And long after we leave Iraq, guess what? Terrorism will still be in this world.

    Terrorists don't have an opposing general that's going to sign some friggin' peace/surrender treaty. It's a war that cannot and will not be "won" by anybody. We cannot beat the terrorists in a military sense, and they cannot beat us in a military sense.
  7. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    It's costly, but Bush isn't the one paying for it. All the people we sent over there and didn't come back are.
    Is part of the job of President being brave with other people's lives?
  8. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    This is such bullshit and I suspect you knew it was dishonest and just plain wrong when you were typing it out.

    Every person in this country wants to fight and win the war on terror. Aside from the one percent of this country who are always against any war, this entire nation was behind this president and the war in Afghanistan.

    The thing that sickens most of us is the knowledge that we were so convincingly winning this war after that invasion. We did more to fight terrorism in the first two months in Afghanistan than we have at any point in this country's history. But because of some idiotic agenda, we gave all of that up to go to Iraq. And in the last four years, we've steadily negated every gain we made.

    That's the problem. Because of this administration and its stupid, petty agenda, we're no longer winning the war on terrorism. We can no longer control one city in the country which we occupy. We have lost an entire region to the very terrorist organization which we had nearly eliminated four years ago. And we have taken a country that was in bad shape and made it considerably worse. Along the way, every single selling point this administration used to get us into this conflict has been proven to be an outright lie. There were no WMDs. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. And the only threat Iraq posed to Americans has come in the days since we've invaded.

    We have lost 3,000 American lives in this thing. That's a big number. You can compare it to the deaths in WWII, WWI or Vietnam and make it seem insignificant. But it's not. You can use all the bullshit rhetoric you'd like to try and convince people that those of us against this war "don't have the backbone to fight" or "can't stomach the consequences of war." It's complete shit. And allow me to clear it up right now: What we can't stomach is the way this administration has so thoroughly dishonored our military men and women by placing them in danger for absolutely no reason.
  9. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    As Tom Friedman said we invaded Iraq because we could. It was a start to war on terror , not an end in itself.

    Are you against the war or the execution of? Most liberals I know are against the war.

    As said I don't think the liberals have the backbone to fight war on terror as it needs to be fought.
  10. The "war on terror" is a stupid marketing formulation. However, as an inspirational slogan for chickenhawk dick-waving, it is so far unsurpassed.
  11. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Fenian - lay out your plan for combating terrorism?
  12. Well, I'd start by listening to people who know what they're talking about.
    She would be a start.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page