And we didn't depose Saddam and we left instead of finishing the job. We didn't make a search of Iraq before we left, instead we (stupidly) accepted their terms of surrender. Do you not remember Iraq spinning those investigators around like a bunch of tops? They were denied access to many facilities for extended periods of time. Why do you think Iraq did that? Do you find it inconceivable that they needed time to hide things from the inspectors? Do you find it inconceivable that they had already shipped the WMD's out of Iraq by the time we 'took possession of Iraq'? We gave them about 40 days, iirc, to take care of business before we invaded. They were fooled by the UN that insisted that we give them over a month to hide the WMD's. Go Blazers
Do they have huge oil reserves in Korea? Europe? Granada? Afghanistan? Japan? Were/are the cold wars with Russia/USSR and China over oil? Putting Iraq (debate-ably) aside, which wars are you talking about? Go Blazers
Your post is an excellent reminder of the propaganda that shouted down the reasoning majority a decade ago, and bankrupted the giant surplus that Bush inherited from Clinton. Each point is easily refuted in a few words, but you know why your half-truths are irrelevant as well as I do, so I won't waste your time.
I'm more caught up now, so go ahead and waste my time, I have a little I can spare. You didn't answer any of the questions I asked you, maybe you could do that too? I don't think you're disputing that we didn't depose Saddam in Desert Storm, right? Are you disputing that we didn't search Iraq before we left after Desert Storm? I don't know if you are disputing whether Iraq had WMD's that were used against Iran and the Kurds in his own country, but I provided some backup for my recollection. I'm guessing that you are disputing that the UN inspectors were spun around like tops by Saddam. (Which they were, for over a freak'n decade.) If that's what you are disputing, here's some backup (I'll use NPR, so you hopefully won't squawk about right wing sources): Quotes from www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218 In a couple of months, Iraq starts the deception. Within six months the UN passes a resolution demanding the Iraq comply with the requirements of Resolution 687. A year later, Iraq is still spinning the inspectors around. Note that they begin destroying Iraq's chemical weapons program, so we know that he had WMD's in 1992. Two years later, same 'ol stuff, Iraq denying access, while accepting Resolution 715, to allow access to their sites. Four years after Resolution 687, Saddam's government 'comes clean' about the the bio WMD program AND the nuclear weapons program they had been hiding. Six years later, the UN passes ANOTHER resolution calling for Iraq to comply. Then they bail out of Iraq. Seven years later, the UN is promised access to the 'presidential sites' they had wanted to inspect since 1991. Eleven years later, Iraq is jerking the inspection teams around. So let me re-ask my questions, and maybe pose a couple more: Please point out the half truths in my previous post. Provide a little backup, if you please. Is it still news to you that Iraq spun the UN inspectors around by denying access to key facilities they wanted to inspect? If Iraq had no WMD's, why do you think that they delayed and obstructed the inspectors for over a decade? Saddam had WMD's in the 80's. Why do you think he destroyed them of his own accord? If he destroyed the WMD's, why do you think he denied access to key facilities for 11 years? Is it inconceivable to you that he needed time to conceal his WMD's, for the reason he denied access for so long? He had about 40 days between the US saying we were coming to kick his ass until we had UN support to do that. Why is it so hard for you to believe that he would ship the WMD's to a place out of reach of the invasion force? Isn't that what you would do, if you were in his place? As far as using up Clinton's surplus, all I can say is that I hope that, someday, you will see beyond your partisan blindness. Go Blazers
If they're not a hate group, then no one is a hate group. They are the poster idiots for what a hate group is. However, I don't think they should be punished or fined for their beliefs. I also don't think they should have the right to spew their shit in public. There are many outlets for people to express themselves on the internet, or by writing a book etc. If someone wants to pass out pamplets on the street peacefully and not block any sidewalks, that's fine too. But we arrest people for disorderly conduct, so why should groups like the KKK, Westboro, or black panthers be allowed to spew hate speech over their loud speakers in public?
I don't want to spend a lot of time refuting the now long-proven-to-be falsehoods, so here are quickie answers which everyone knows anyway. You say that it was a mistake for Big Bush to refrain from starting the giant war which Little Bush later stupidly created. History has proven that War #2 was a monumental error which has permanently destroyed the U.S. Having that stupid war 10 years earlier would have caused the economy to die 10 years earlier. History has proven that there was nothing to find that they didn't find. So who cares if Saddam rebelled against foreigners oversearching for what he knew he didn't have. Your complaint is like whining about how the Blazers win an NBA championship. Who cares how it was done. What matters is that there were no WMDs to find. Inconceivable because what use are weapons if you make them inaccessible. If Iraq gave them to neighbors, then they didn't have them to use. In effect, they didn't exist. Besides, transporting them was impossible since UN investigators were all over the country watching for exactly that, and watching the few scientists who would have to travel with high tech weapons or they'd get broken, with US satellites looking for such events too. What do they call you conspiracists again? Tin foil hats? First time I've ever used the term. Face it, history proved you wrong.
No materials usable in war other than a couple of molecules left over from War #1 have been found. Your disk jockey source got fired and moved to this hot and sexy radio station. http://theburningtruth.us/
He may have moved to another station, but the truth in his WWW page, along with links to supporting declassified and wikileaks documentation haven't. The New York Times hasn't moved, either, nor have they changed their extremist left tilt.
Not sure how this got onto Iraq. Back to original topic, as succinctly as I can: 1. Westboro Baptist Church is a hate group. That is all they do. How this tiny group gets its funding is an interesting question. 2. Saying they are a hate group in no way interferes with their Constitutional rights. 3. Free speech is meaningless if it only applies to nice people. Free speech only has meaning if it covers the most offensive, hateful, despicable, unpopular speech. 4. Defending free speech is not defending the content, let alone applauding it. 5. No one on "the left" supported picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan (or anywhere else). Except that Fox News did say the Westboro Baptist Church was part of "the left" and Phelps a Democrat, both bullshit. 6. Free speech is not the same as providing a platform. No one is obligated to provide a platform for these fools. It is entirely consistent to defend their Constitutional rights and at the same time protest major news organizations giving a national platform for this cult of maybe a dozen people to spew hate. 7. Sending young men and women to be killed and wounded in a war based on, at best, misinformation, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, is far more offensive than any speech.
News organizations sending reporters, cameramen, and photographers to where these people protest, then giving them a ridiculous amount of press coverage is supporting these people to no ends. The Liberal Media is providing a platform. It is handing them a microphone that would otherwise cost far more than a 40 person organization like this would raise on their own. This is a 40 person organization. Fringe group. Hate speech, no doubt, but they're no threat other than to disturb the peace. As Sinobas wrote, they could be arrested for disturbing the peace if that's what they're doing. The liberal media (e.g. not Fox) wanted to disturb the remains of fallen soldiers. They demanded access to their coffins, regardless of the privacy concerns for, or how much additional pain they would cause for the families and loved ones of those soldiers. Turn a blind eye. Go for it.
It would be nice if they would not give them the coverage they seek, but the media is about ratings and profits, and this stuff gets people emotional. A few clips from Fox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqwE6yHbnKo
I don't see the issue with covering the lawsuits. But surely there are other 40 person organizations who spew hate speech that could be filmed and given prime time TV air time.
repped, nice , well thought out post If these same people had alligned themselves with occupy..how would they be covered then? I think they would be ignored as a "fringe group" like many of the occupy radicals were..
If these were “long-proven-to-be falsehoods”, seems like you could provide at least a shred of evidence to support your partisan ranting. Would you back up the crap you keep saying, for once? Please quote where I said that. You’re just making shit up. We were stupid to not negotiate better terms of surrender. It was widely acknowledged at the time that Storm’n Norman was outfoxed by allowing Saddam the use of helicopters when we pulled out. That use of helicopters resulted in the deaths of thousands in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. These were the very same Shia that we encouraged to revolt against the Saddam regime as we pulled out, leaving them twisting in the wind. I don’t understand how anyone could think that we weren’t stupid to accept those terms. The US is/was destroyed by the Desert Fox? Did I miss the memo that we no longer exist as a nation? Are we not still a world military and economic power? What the hell are you talking about? Again, maybe you could point out where I advocated for this…instead of making up a straw man to kick around. You think the bursting of the housing bubble was because of the wars in Iraq? You seriously put all the blame for our economic woes on the wars in Iraq? [/QUOTE]History has proven that there was nothing to find that they didn't find. [/QUOTE] Sorry Bud, but you repeating your same silly mantra over and over doesn’t make it true. Show me proof that Saddam didn’t move his WMD’s out of country before the US invaded. Show me proof that there were no WMD’s at the many sites where he denied access to the UN Inspectors. [/QUOTE]So who cares if Saddam rebelled against foreigners oversearching for what he knew he didn't have. [/QUOTE] You complain about MY half-truths? How about you show one shred of evidence that Saddam knew there were no WMD’s in the site that he wouldn’t look the UN look at. (I’d be interested in how you know what Saddam knew, if you would like to enlighten me.) Unless you can back up your assertion with something besides your partisan opinion, saying there were no WMD’s to be found is just more made up bs. If I were Saddam, I would rather see my friends in another country (probably Syria) have my WMD’s than to have the US or UN take them. I wouldn’t preclude the possibility that he could strike a deal where he could get the weapon’s back, or part of them back, after things cooled down when the US pulled out. They could then have them to use later. You thinking that moving them out of country means they effectively didn’t exist is out there where the buses don’t run. ARE YOU FREAK’N KIDDING ME??? The UN investigators were all over the country is your best half-truth yet. The UN people were exactly where Saddam allowed them to be, and NOWHERE else. Further, Saddam knew exactly where the inspectors were every minute they were in country. When did we start talking about high tech weapons? We are talking about drums of chemicals, iirc. I don’t think those are hard to move, and they don’t break when you move them. Do you think that satellites can see the contents of tractor/trailers being driven down the highway? I'm thinking your statements are are meant to jerk me around, or they are just bone headed, or both. What do they call people that make shit up and keep their head in the sand, with their fingers in their ears yelling ‘LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU’ to avoid hearing an opinion that upsets their apple cart? If history has proven me wrong, why can’t you back up a single thing you’ve said with anything but your liberal bias? Go Blazers
Gotta hand it to you warmongers. You are persistent, no matter how few you are, no matter how much you've been proven wrong, no matter how many years you've been rejected by the voters and polls. Maybe I'll read that last post. Maybe I'll respond. I don't have the energy right now to again enter your fantasy world of shining knights vs dragons.
Where did I advocate for war? Where is one bit of evidence that I am wrong? If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit, right? Go Blazers
