Let's look at the facts surrounding the run-up to the Iraq invasion:
Iraq was involved in 9/11. Fact: Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. But with loads of innuendo and doublespeak, the Bush Administration made it seem that way.
Ahmed Chalabi was a great candidate to run Iraq. Sure, if you don't mind a convicted felon in power. Chalabi was convicted of embezzlement in the late 80's. He's wanted in Jordan. And he was handpicked by Bush to run Iraq. So where is he know? We've raided his offices several times due to the fact that they are suspect of helping the insurgency.
Iraq had mobile weapons labs. No. Those were mobile weather labs sold by the British in the late 90's. And the british have confirmed that there were NO modifications as the White House as stated.
Iraq has WMDs. So far zero. I know that repubs/cons will be screaming about this one, but those stockpiles that have been found WERE accounted for by the U.N. inspectors. Even the White House has denied the findings.
2006-08-15
01:58:46
·
16 answers
·
asked by
darkemoregan
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Iraq supports terrorism. AQ was in Iraq, but ONLY in the northern and southern no-fly zones. Whenever Saddam made a move against them, we bombed the convoy. Saddam sent money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestein. According to the State Department our allies gave far more money than did Iraq.
The Niger Uranium claim was known to be false a full year before Bush put it forward in his State of the Union address. One of the scientists named in the document was under 24-hour guard in britain and has been since he defected in 93.
The INC was responsible for a lot of the so-called intel for the invasion. But they discredited themselves. Allowed to speak they have contradicted each other and themselves repeatedly. The CIA didn't have any faith in anything put forward by this organization, but yet the White House kept trotting them out as proof.
2006-08-15
02:08:44 ·
update #1
Hey Sarge, I hate to tell you this, but what you're fellows saw, were only mobile weather ballon stations. I mean, it was only the manufacturers that confirmed it. You know. The guys who actually built the "mobile weapons platforms."
To those that are saying that I'm lying, I'm from Missouri. Show me.
2006-08-15
02:12:17 ·
update #2
To those of you who doubt my patriotism, I've been serving this country for 10 years. I've been to the Gulf 3 times. I've worked with people who have been there and are far more knowledgeable of the area than I am. And a lot of talking points have come from their expertise. I have several friends that know for a fact that the intel for the invasion was skewed. And as a result they gave up their careers because of it.
2006-08-15
02:20:00 ·
update #3
I have yet to see anyone dispute my facts. I didn't get them from any DNC website. Personally I detest Dems as much as I do Repubs. But I've seen too much proof to the contrary.
2006-08-15
02:23:44 ·
update #4
What would my solution have been? I would have finished the job in Afghanistan. As is, the Taliban has effectively reclaimed 1/3 of the country. Bush has DISBANDED the units set up to capture Osama Bin Laden. The guy who master minded 9/11. And I have yet to see republicans or conservatives get pissed off about this.
2006-08-15
02:25:55 ·
update #5
wmcritter: What part of my fats aren't true? Everything I posted has been fact. Not once has anyone really disputed them except by saying You're lying. Let's see your proof?
2006-08-15
02:28:22 ·
update #6
Well the thing is that most of the conservatives and republicans are people who are neophobes, while most liberals and Democrats are neophiles.
Neophobes fear change, and therefor their world view rarely changes. They think that because Saddam had WMD's that he still does and will always have them, regardless of facts. They think that the "tried and true" will always be the best way. Their economic policies never change, their idea of science is limited and they can do nothing about it. Independent thought is a phantom for the neophobe.
Neophiles embrace change. They understand that the world is an ever changing place, and can adapt themselves to conditions more readily. They are looking for the better way and looking to help others to find it. Their economics are more sound as they will change policy to fit the socio-economic climate. The neophile is always thinking and growing, ready for changes and in some instances are a few steps ahead of the game. Independent thought is the Hallmark of the neophile.
In conclusion there are far more neophobes than neophiles, and many democrats and liberals are neophobes just like their conservative and republican counterparts. In general there is a much greater likelyhood of a neophobe being a right-winger, than a neophile, it's just they way that we are wired.
2006-08-15 02:33:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by vertical732 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Have you been over there dipshit? Do you know the truth of what is going on? Have you served in the military? Do you know what it is like to live in a hole watching the enemy for months, and then coming back. Once you are back, 20 of your 22 men that went with you all died from cancer and other deaths within a few years. And one that is living, was tested and his DNA doesnt match his twin brother's DNA. DO you think they all just got sick when they got home and wasnt attacked by chemical weapons. Until you know the truth, quit talking bull ****. Its not like our president is out getting a ******** like some democratic president did. Iraq is a training ground for Al Quaida. Osma even talked about their friends in Iraq.
also- you got 5 % of Iraq being ruled by Saddam. The rest are kept poor and women cant do ****. Sewage runs through the streets and people live next to it. Saddam kills thousands of people for personal growth. Now that the 5 % is no longer in control, they are causing problems to the 95 %. That is what is going on.
USA kicks ***.
2006-08-15 09:11:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
OK, let's dispel a few rumors here before they fester into facts: (1) Iraq DID have mobile weapons labs, and (2) Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction that were found during the second invasion of Iraq. The British can say whatever they like, but I trust the words of my fellow soldiers and colleagues who saw them WITH THEIR OWN EYES over the words of any two-bit bureaucrat.
Here's a question for you: Why is it that liberals are so brainwashed that they simply regurgitate the so-called "facts" put out by the mainstream liberal media?
2006-08-15 09:07:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by sarge927 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I am quite sure that they can think for themselves. Going into Iraq was fueled by economic purposes. This makes since, because the Republican party's has always supported business interests. This is not the same as saying that the Republican Party is not good, for it played many significant roles in the United States of America. Currently, it does seem bad.
2006-08-15 09:18:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by John B 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel sorry for you. Nothing you have stated in your question is true. You are the one that can not think for yourself. You blindly believe anything that anyone says to bash Bush just because he has a R instead of a D. You are no better than a racist hating people for the color of their skin.
If you care about the truth, do some research and find it. Stop listening to hate-mongers.
"the truth shall set you free"
2006-08-15 09:10:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Aegis of Freedom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't forget Clinton supported these people before Bush, so it isn't a Democrat verses Republican. It's that no one has been looking out for the American citizens for a long time and we need change.
2006-08-15 09:06:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by jackie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think this question was already posed once before. The typical answer they got was that the Democrats are the ones that can't think for themselves. This makes no sense as Dems don't have anyone telling them what to think.
Oh yeah...and you are a terrorist/traitor/un-patriotic tree hugger. (According to them, not me.)
2006-08-15 09:14:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by bluejacket8j 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because it's much easier to let Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter do their thinking for them. More time to count their money (for the bosses) or attend NASCAR races (for the rednecks)
2006-08-15 09:02:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just goes to show what a great country this is. You lie blantantly, (referring to Bush) and you get away with it. Heck, you even get a following.
I'm a moderate, but if I had to choose b/w democrat and republican, I would choose democrat b/c it's not bush...
2006-08-15 09:04:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by mommy_mommy_crappypants 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since Jesus and Bush are so close no one dares defy his word. That and he made a mistake and none can peel those damn stickers off their windows therefore acting like he is right.
2006-08-15 11:49:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Karrien Sim Peters 5
·
0⤊
0⤋