The true motivations for War in Iraq.

bird chest · Mar 26, 2004, 02:22 AM

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums...showtopic=4911 see I was right his stance was that before the election.

raid517 · Mar 26, 2004, 03:01 AM

Small problem with that is that it was signed into law by Clinton at the hight of the Clinton era - pretty much in the middle of the whole Monica Lewinsky thing - when he authorized more bombing raids on Iraq as pretty much a means of distracting attention from his own domestic crisis.

In any case that act limits any assistance to no more than $97 million dollars, which was undoubtedly spent several times over in the most recent war:

Quote:

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

So going by your own estimation it appears that your government may have broken the law.

In any case I can assure you that even though a bill did exist during the Clinton era, Bush most certainly never campaigned on the basis that he was going to invade Iraq. Campaigning is where you stand up on TV and tell the world that that is what you plan to do. What you refer to is an obscure act that very few ordinary people are likely to have ever been aware of. (Including I suspect you - since you clearly had to dig so hard to find anything at all).

It in any case only serves to add to the conspiracy theorists fears that this war had nothing at all to do with Bush's so called 'war on terror' and that it was in fact something that had secretly been in the pipeline for a very long time. If you will recall (unless as appears common with Republican types you have opted to selectively forget) Bush campaigned extremely vocally on the basis that the war in Iraq was a part of his war against terrorism - and indeed the act that was eventually passed authorizing war (which certainly wasn't the one you refer to) was passed by both houses on exactly that basis.

You appear to be getting your historical timeliness - and your chain of events slightly confused.

GJ

roadrunner72 · Mar 26, 2004, 05:03 AM

This posting is for my roommate.........

Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy .

Dear posters...... three thousand people died on 9-11 2001 or was this some bad action film I was watching " OH WAIT !! THAT REALLY HAPPEND !!!!! " The Iraqi goverment had direct culpability in this act by thier direct sponsorship of terrorist acts and further more if the war had been about oil, last time I checked it was the lifeblood of the planet. No matter what the environmentalist would like you to believe. Furthermore, if this war was in the planning stages before 9/11 the buildup and execution of the war would have taken place prior to 9/11. Also you can make a strong case that "President William Blythe Clinton" is directly responsible for the failures in intelligence prior to 9/11. For cutting funding, "real cuts", in intelligence areas. Also turning it into a law enforcement issue instead of a military issue. As far as the argument that Iraq did not possess WMD's were they not used against Iran and the Kurds? Gas is considered a WMD. Also did he not launch ballistic missiles at Isreal, also a direct act of war. As far as the UN, how many toothless resolutions are they willing to issue before they take action? The terrorists did declare war on the United States. If being a superpower bothers you, Canada is just north of here! "BON VOYAGE!!!" Any country that deals with terrorists and the slaughter of innocent people should feel the wraith of The United States and other civilized countries. As far as France and Germany blocking coalition forces actions in Iraq because of the sweetheart Un sponsored oil for food program that they were personally profiting from. Or is this just another US lie? I think not! As far as for my favorite liberals, what is your plan to defeat those that would do the US citizens harm? I have not seen it yet, but hear rhetoric and hate for the right from the most "tolerant" people on the planet. OH WAIT!!! Senator Kerry, who wants to be elected President wants to turn over all matters of US national security to the UN, who have been an abysmal "FAILURE" at enforcing their own resolutions. Half of who's member states would like to see us "CEASE TO EXIST". As for "Blythe Clinton", if he wouldn't have taken a laid back approach to the first WTC bombing in '93, and went after it as a serious threat before '98 when he was forced too, To cover up from getting sexual favors from interns in the "Oval Orifice" or is this some new government training technique that I'm not familiar with ?

Clinton had the same resolution for war that Bush was given. When Clinton demonstrated his military prowess and attacked that heavily defended "aspirin factory" (A REAL THREAT

). Or is that just to distract from his i,mpending impeachment? What was done in response to the bombing to the USS COLE "NOTHING" this was a direct act of war against the US and Clinton refused to respond to it! If Clinton would have focused on his duties as the President instead af placing cigars where they don't belong and getting BJ's then Bush wouldn't have to clean up the mess Clinton left! Unfortunately, a dry cleaner can't remove the bloodstains from 9/11 as they can from a blue dress! I certainly hope that tryst was worth the price we all paid!

Again this posting is for my roommate !!!!!!!!!!!

raid517 · Mar 26, 2004, 06:16 AM

Quote:

this posting is for my roommate !!!!!!!!!!!

Well I'm glad you're not willing to take responsibility for it.

First let me say welcome Fox News viewer to the real world. For your information there has been no established link whatsoever to the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Husein . Husein was not responsible for these attacks - and subsequent investigations by your own CIA have conclusively proved that there was no link between Al Quada and 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in573801.shtml

Indeeed Bush is currently being investigated to see if he deliberately distorted the evidence in order to draw America and her allies into a war - and so far - given the number of people who have spoken against him, it is not looking good.

Just because oil is the 'lifeblood of the world' does not give you the right to steal it - unless Republican morality says that somehow theft is OK.

Just because a war is in 'planning' does not mean it will be executed before that plan is complete. Why would that make any sense? Bush needed to be in power long enough to make it happen - which is more or less what it did.

As for failures in intelligence as far as most of the people who worked for him at the time, they claim bush lied and invented intelligence to suit his ends:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...995188,00.html

And when presented with real intelligence of a terrorist threat he chose to ignore it:

Quote:

A veteran White House anti-terrorism official has accused President George Bush of ignoring the threat from al-Qa'ida before 11 September 2001 _ and then at once seeking to hold Iraq responsible, despite being told by intelligence advisers that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

In an interview with the CBS program 60 Minutes yesterday, Richard Clarke, who served under Presidents Reagan and Clinton as well as both Bushes, described a meeting with Mr Bush a day after 11 September at which the President put pressure on him to go after an Iraqi connection: "I want you to find out whether Iraq did this."

When Mr Clarke, then the White House policy co-ordinator on anti-terrorism, told him US intelligence had concluded that Iraq had no links with al-Qa'ida terrorism, Mr Bush was insistent. "He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way ... I mean that we should come back with that answer."

Mr Clarke's claims, set out in greater detail in a book published today entitled Against All Enemies, is bound to fuel debate on two entwined issues that may be decisive in the 2004 presidential election _ whether this Bush administration could have done more to prevent 9/11, and precisely why and when it decided to go war with Iraq.

In the case of the latter, the book will only reinforce the suspicion that Mr Bush's recourse to the United Nations in September 2002, and the few weeks of UN inspections before the war, were a fig leaf. The impression given by Against All Enemies is that the basic decision to topple Saddam was taken before, or at the latest shortly after, the attacks on New York and Washington. Last night the White House flatly denied the charges, dismissing Mr Clarke's accusations as "an audition for a job" on the campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee designate to face Mr Bush in November.

But they come at a highly sensitive moment. This week, Mr Clarke and former senior Clinton aides including his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, will testify to the independent federal commission examining the background to the World Trade Center attacks. They will insist that during the 2000-01 presidential transition they repeatedly warned that al-Qa'ida was the biggest foreign threat faced by the US.

Only four days after Mr Bush's inauguration, Mr Clarke says he wrote to Condoleezza Rice, the President's national security adviser, seeking a cabinet-level meeting on al-Qa'ida and international terrorism. But nothing happened. Only a week before the September attacks was the cabinet meeting held.

It was outrageous, Mr Clarke told 60 Minutes, that the President was running for re-election "on the grounds he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11".

Instead, the incoming Bush team focused on the same Cold War issues that pre-occupied his father's administration, notably the "Star Wars" missile defence shield, and Iraq. "It was as if they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," he said.

At a meeting in April 2001 attended by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defence and a decade-long advocate of toppling Saddam, Mr Clarke again warned of al-Qa'ida and Osama bin Laden. But Mr Wolfowitz, he says, would have none of it. "No, no, no, we don't have to deal with al-Qa'ida. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Mr Wolfowitz is known to have called for an attack on Iraq at a Camp David meeting on 15 September 2001, just four days after the attacks. According to Mr Clarke, however, the focus at the White House was on Iraq even sooner, on 12 September.

So it seems at least Clinton was willing to listen to the intelligence community - where bush just invented his own intelligence.

With regard to Iraq not owning any WMDs - that is not the assertion - the assertion is that whatever WMDs they did posses were destroyed a very long time ago - which has now been shown to be the case. Despite what Fox News has told you, there were no WMDs found in Iraq - and what is more there were no active programs to produce any either and this is the verdict of George W. Bush's own handpicked CIA weapons inspector, namely David Kay .

Furthermore your suggestion that the 'Chemical weapons factory' that was found - well that particular story disappeared as fast as it appeared. Whatever it was Kay didn't make anything of it - and the Army was soon keen to play it down:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...921234,00.html

Whatever you make of it, Kay said there wasn't anything there, so there you are. I trust this has now cleared this up for you.

Lol I like how you make the link between Clinton probing the Oval Orifice - and 9/11 - I would be very keen for you to explain how that works?

I mean what has a guy playing away from home got to do with his ability to do a job?

Lot's of guys do it every day - it hardly makes them mass murderers.

Also when you say that half of the United nations wants to see America destroyed - I think you are getting America confused with Israel - and even then it is only a few of Israelis more extreme neighbours who still think like that.

I guess that's what watching Fox news too much does to you - it certainly seems to give you a completely warped sense of reality.

Anyway, we have done this here a thousand times before - if you want to keep it up we have a whole bunch of standard answers. maybe someone could put together an FAQ for you?

Other than that before posting and forcing people to dredge up the same old stuff, you might benefit from reading back through the threads a little.

GJ

roadrunner72 · Mar 26, 2004, 06:54 AM

I take full responsibility for the post , if I was not willing to take responsibility for it I would not have let him post it on my account .
I just wanted to clarify that it was for someone else .
Myself , I do not talk politics , it gives me a F**KING HEADACHE !!!!!!!!!!!

I have no use for politicians , all they do is screw things up for everyone .

sparky03 · Mar 26, 2004, 07:09 AM

My original posting was done under raodrunner72.

I do take resposibility for my statement.

Why is it that you libs are so scared of this man? Did the Clinton administration have eight years to take care of this problem? Terrorism and Iraq, the answer is yes. They did nothing! Therefore, after the US wasa attacked we were forced to take action to protect ourselves. I never stated that Iraq Planned the 9/11 bombing. I said they could be held responsible for harboring and training terrorists including Al Quida a known link. Also, the paper you qoute "The Gaurdian", I wouldn't wipe my backside with! Also, what the President does in the Oval Office does directly effect me. Last time I checked, he worked for me. Also, a sexual affair could leave him open for blackmail by a foreign power. Do you possess that much power? I don't! As for Madeline Albright, of course she wants an investigation of Bush to take the heat of of their failures of dealing with the problem. What "chemical factory"? And yes I do mean the US not Isreal. By the way, what would happen if the leash was taken off Isreal? There are too many rogue states threatening my freedom and it is time they are reigned in. OH if we were stealing oil, why am I paying almost $2 per gallon because of a shortage? If we were fighting for oil we would possess it all by now. As for Iraq again, in the last 20 years they have attacked 3 countries and invaded 1. Do you not think that this mad man should have been stopped? Our was he a likely candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize? How many of his own people were slaughtered? Or doesn't that matter? By the way, President Clinton stated two weeks ago in public that his intelligence thought WMD's existed in Iraq. Does the US have a right to protect itself and its interests? You can not make friends or coexist with terrorists or Spain not happen? Countries that do not stand up for tjheir own self interests and right to exist "WILL BE ATTACKED". We have defeated evil before and will so again! Why is what is good for the US bad for the Democratic party and wehat is good for the Democratic party bad for the US? Simply put, it's not safe to vote then Democratic party. Did JFK turn over the Bay Of Pigs to the UN? NO!!! We will not turn over the sovereignty of the US to the UN! As for Clark, why did he not state his objection to the war when Clinton proposed the same action? Using the same exact intelligence reports. Bush got his resolution for war from the Congress and Senate of the US twice. WMD's was only a small part of the list of many to do with Iraq. The main was the enforcement of multiple UN resdolutions and deadlines which Iraq had ignored for TWELVE YEARS! Those are the facts.

raid517 · Mar 26, 2004, 07:53 AM

So even though Bush's own hand picked CIA weapons inspector has said that there was no WMDs in Iraq and no program to produce them either, you don't believe him? Okaaay.... Why you want to cling so desperately to something everyone gave up believing in a long time ago is your own business.

And I think you will find that Clinton Bombed Iraq on multiple occasions - and that the policy of 'containment' practiced at that time was a republican inspired and sponsored policy. Remember it was the last Republican administration who opted to leave him in power, because they thought they could 'contain him' - and maybe even use him again at a later date.

JFK got his ass kicked over the bay of pigs - so I'm not sure what your point is there.

As for oil being $2 a gallon - do you guys have any idea how cheap that is? The only way prices like that could be maintained is if oil supply was massively subsidized by the government. At that rate, it is possible to see how one day your country could become bankrupt. Lower the cost of the subsidies given to oil producers - and you instantly lower the deficit. Simple economics I'm afraid.

No one is asking you to turn over sovereignty of the US to the UN - maybe only to comply with international standards and conventions on law. If you don't believe there should be anything called international law, then maybe you would be happier if America existed in the stone age?

How can you argue in one breath that you are enforcing UN policy, while openly avowing your hatred of them and saying that you will not abide by any decisions they make? You can''t enforce the rulings of a body to which you claim you do not subscribe.

Oh well anyway - as I said, you would benefit a lot from reading back through all the threads here. All this stuff has been done to death - and you coming in late and shouting all the same old stuff is not very useful.

To be honest a lot of the stuff you spout sounds like it has come out of some Republican party comic book - or off the back of a packet of a Republican sponsored Cornflake packet.

You employ a familiar Republican trick of when an uncomfortable link is provided, or conclusive proof is shown that your views are misfounded, you just completely ignore it and bang on endlessly about the same old stuff.

Read what these guys are saying. Bush's case for war was a fantasy. If he had fought the war on the basis of removing an evil dictator then fair enough - but he didn't. He linked it to the war on terror and to al-Quadia - links that subsequently proved to have no substance. A lot of people could have got their heads round removing Saddam, but why lie, why deceive everyone when the truth is easier to sell?

In any case even the chief military guy in Iraq immediately after the invasion Jay Garner has said that the true objective of the war was to set up a middle eastern power base from which to launch future attacks and to use this to undermine OPEC - or didn't you watch the video at the head of this topic?

It seems that everyone but Bush and you are now saying that this war had nothing to do with the war on terror. Not to worry though because the current investigation looks set to find that Bush did lie and that he did mislead the nation.

No doubt though you will make every possible effort to ignore that too.

GJ

raid517 · Mar 26, 2004, 08:05 AM

And really I'm serious, please do read back over the threads - these topics have been covered many times from a multitude of angles. If you do and you find anything new to say, or have a question that hasn't been answered, feel free to post back and let me know.

GJ

**Roadee** · Mar 26, 2004, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
And really I'm serious, please do read back over the threads - these topics have been covered many times from a multitude of angles. If you do and you find anything new to say, or have a question that hasn't been answered, feel free to post back and let me know.

GJ

Well, for one thing, this really isn't the proper way to greet a new member here on DH. Yes some of this stuff has been discussed several times, you personally make sure of that Raid!! And seeing as how YOU dredged up this old topic to discuss, debate, or spread your personal opinion on, I dont think that telling someone, what is quoted above, is very intelligent.

But maybe you should take your own advice this time considering what you said in your first post on this topic.

"I know this is ground that we have visited many times over on this thread - but it is nonetheless interesting to see how over time all of Bush's arguments are falling away and how the real reasons for this war are being revealed."

Try keeping this discussion as civil as possible

And remember that politicians dont lie!!

[SIZE=x-large]sparky03[/SIZE] Welcome to Driverheaven I hope that you enjoy it here.

Zardon · Mar 26, 2004, 09:20 AM

guys lets not open multiple accounts to reiterate a point made in the same thread under ANOTHER name, this is actually against the forum rules. You know who you arwwwwwe (there is more than one person doing it), im not going to embarass anyone in public but I dont want to see it again - or ill be taking further action. This thread is closed.

Mar 26, 2004, 07:53 AM	Thread Starter #37
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	So even though Bush's own hand picked CIA weapons inspector has said that there was no WMDs in Iraq and no program to produce them either, you don't believe him? Okaaay.... Why you want to cling so desperately to something everyone gave up believing in a long time ago is your own business. And I think you will find that Clinton Bombed Iraq on multiple occasions - and that the policy of 'containment' practiced at that time was a republican inspired and sponsored policy. Remember it was the last Republican administration who opted to leave him in power, because they thought they could 'contain him' - and maybe even use him again at a later date. JFK got his ass kicked over the bay of pigs - so I'm not sure what your point is there. As for oil being $2 a gallon - do you guys have any idea how cheap that is? The only way prices like that could be maintained is if oil supply was massively subsidized by the government. At that rate, it is possible to see how one day your country could become bankrupt. Lower the cost of the subsidies given to oil producers - and you instantly lower the deficit. Simple economics I'm afraid. No one is asking you to turn over sovereignty of the US to the UN - maybe only to comply with international standards and conventions on law. If you don't believe there should be anything called international law, then maybe you would be happier if America existed in the stone age? How can you argue in one breath that you are enforcing UN policy, while openly avowing your hatred of them and saying that you will not abide by any decisions they make? You can''t enforce the rulings of a body to which you claim you do not subscribe. Oh well anyway - as I said, you would benefit a lot from reading back through all the threads here. All this stuff has been done to death - and you coming in late and shouting all the same old stuff is not very useful. To be honest a lot of the stuff you spout sounds like it has come out of some Republican party comic book - or off the back of a packet of a Republican sponsored Cornflake packet. You employ a familiar Republican trick of when an uncomfortable link is provided, or conclusive proof is shown that your views are misfounded, you just completely ignore it and bang on endlessly about the same old stuff. Read what these guys are saying. Bush's case for war was a fantasy. If he had fought the war on the basis of removing an evil dictator then fair enough - but he didn't. He linked it to the war on terror and to al-Quadia - links that subsequently proved to have no substance. A lot of people could have got their heads round removing Saddam, but why lie, why deceive everyone when the truth is easier to sell? In any case even the chief military guy in Iraq immediately after the invasion Jay Garner has said that the true objective of the war was to set up a middle eastern power base from which to launch future attacks and to use this to undermine OPEC - or didn't you watch the video at the head of this topic? It seems that everyone but Bush and you are now saying that this war had nothing to do with the war on terror. Not to worry though because the current investigation looks set to find that Bush did lie and that he did mislead the nation. No doubt though you will make every possible effort to ignore that too. GJ Last edited by raid517; Mar 26, 2004 at 08:03 AM.

Mar 26, 2004, 09:20 AM	#40
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	multiple accounts guys lets not open multiple accounts to reiterate a point made in the same thread under ANOTHER name, this is actually against the forum rules. You know who you arwwwwwe (there is more than one person doing it), im not going to embarass anyone in public but I dont want to see it again - or ill be taking further action. This thread is closed.

Mar 26, 2004, 02:22 AM	#31
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	http://www.americasdebate.com/forums...showtopic=4911 see I was right his stance was that before the election.

Mar 26, 2004, 05:03 AM	#33
roadrunner72 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: wisconsin Posts: 25 Rep Power: 0	This posting is for my roommate......... Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy . Dear posters...... three thousand people died on 9-11 2001 or was this some bad action film I was watching " OH WAIT !! THAT REALLY HAPPEND !!!!! " The Iraqi goverment had direct culpability in this act by thier direct sponsorship of terrorist acts and further more if the war had been about oil, last time I checked it was the lifeblood of the planet. No matter what the environmentalist would like you to believe. Furthermore, if this war was in the planning stages before 9/11 the buildup and execution of the war would have taken place prior to 9/11. Also you can make a strong case that "President William Blythe Clinton" is directly responsible for the failures in intelligence prior to 9/11. For cutting funding, "real cuts", in intelligence areas. Also turning it into a law enforcement issue instead of a military issue. As far as the argument that Iraq did not possess WMD's were they not used against Iran and the Kurds? Gas is considered a WMD. Also did he not launch ballistic missiles at Isreal, also a direct act of war. As far as the UN, how many toothless resolutions are they willing to issue before they take action? The terrorists did declare war on the United States. If being a superpower bothers you, Canada is just north of here! "BON VOYAGE!!!" Any country that deals with terrorists and the slaughter of innocent people should feel the wraith of The United States and other civilized countries. As far as France and Germany blocking coalition forces actions in Iraq because of the sweetheart Un sponsored oil for food program that they were personally profiting from. Or is this just another US lie? I think not! As far as for my favorite liberals, what is your plan to defeat those that would do the US citizens harm? I have not seen it yet, but hear rhetoric and hate for the right from the most "tolerant" people on the planet. OH WAIT!!! Senator Kerry, who wants to be elected President wants to turn over all matters of US national security to the UN, who have been an abysmal "FAILURE" at enforcing their own resolutions. Half of who's member states would like to see us "CEASE TO EXIST". As for "Blythe Clinton", if he wouldn't have taken a laid back approach to the first WTC bombing in '93, and went after it as a serious threat before '98 when he was forced too, To cover up from getting sexual favors from interns in the "Oval Orifice" or is this some new government training technique that I'm not familiar with ? Clinton had the same resolution for war that Bush was given. When Clinton demonstrated his military prowess and attacked that heavily defended "aspirin factory" (A REAL THREAT ). Or is that just to distract from his i,mpending impeachment? What was done in response to the bombing to the USS COLE "NOTHING" this was a direct act of war against the US and Clinton refused to respond to it! If Clinton would have focused on his duties as the President instead af placing cigars where they don't belong and getting BJ's then Bush wouldn't have to clean up the mess Clinton left! Unfortunately, a dry cleaner can't remove the bloodstains from 9/11 as they can from a blue dress! I certainly hope that tryst was worth the price we all paid! Again this posting is for my roommate !!!!!!!!!!!

Mar 26, 2004, 06:54 AM	#35
roadrunner72 DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: wisconsin Posts: 25 Rep Power: 0	I take full responsibility for the post , if I was not willing to take responsibility for it I would not have let him post it on my account . I just wanted to clarify that it was for someone else . Myself , I do not talk politics , it gives me a F**KING HEADACHE !!!!!!!!!!! I have no use for politicians , all they do is screw things up for everyone .

Mar 26, 2004, 07:09 AM	#36
sparky03 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	My original posting was done under raodrunner72. I do take resposibility for my statement. Why is it that you libs are so scared of this man? Did the Clinton administration have eight years to take care of this problem? Terrorism and Iraq, the answer is yes. They did nothing! Therefore, after the US wasa attacked we were forced to take action to protect ourselves. I never stated that Iraq Planned the 9/11 bombing. I said they could be held responsible for harboring and training terrorists including Al Quida a known link. Also, the paper you qoute "The Gaurdian", I wouldn't wipe my backside with! Also, what the President does in the Oval Office does directly effect me. Last time I checked, he worked for me. Also, a sexual affair could leave him open for blackmail by a foreign power. Do you possess that much power? I don't! As for Madeline Albright, of course she wants an investigation of Bush to take the heat of of their failures of dealing with the problem. What "chemical factory"? And yes I do mean the US not Isreal. By the way, what would happen if the leash was taken off Isreal? There are too many rogue states threatening my freedom and it is time they are reigned in. OH if we were stealing oil, why am I paying almost $2 per gallon because of a shortage? If we were fighting for oil we would possess it all by now. As for Iraq again, in the last 20 years they have attacked 3 countries and invaded 1. Do you not think that this mad man should have been stopped? Our was he a likely candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize? How many of his own people were slaughtered? Or doesn't that matter? By the way, President Clinton stated two weeks ago in public that his intelligence thought WMD's existed in Iraq. Does the US have a right to protect itself and its interests? You can not make friends or coexist with terrorists or Spain not happen? Countries that do not stand up for tjheir own self interests and right to exist "WILL BE ATTACKED". We have defeated evil before and will so again! Why is what is good for the US bad for the Democratic party and wehat is good for the Democratic party bad for the US? Simply put, it's not safe to vote then Democratic party. Did JFK turn over the Bay Of Pigs to the UN? NO!!! We will not turn over the sovereignty of the US to the UN! As for Clark, why did he not state his objection to the war when Clinton proposed the same action? Using the same exact intelligence reports. Bush got his resolution for war from the Congress and Senate of the US twice. WMD's was only a small part of the list of many to do with Iraq. The main was the enforcement of multiple UN resdolutions and deadlines which Iraq had ignored for TWELVE YEARS! Those are the facts.

Mar 26, 2004, 08:05 AM	Thread Starter #38
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	And really I'm serious, please do read back over the threads - these topics have been covered many times from a multitude of angles. If you do and you find anything new to say, or have a question that hasn't been answered, feel free to post back and let me know. GJ