Devilish34 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 If the US were to have a 9-11 type attack next year people and many on this board I feel, would blame Obama in a heartbeat. Personally I don't think it mattered who we had in office when 9-11 happened but this is sort of a double standard. Why would Obama be blaimed? Unless you are assuming he would be president at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Why would Obama be blaimed? Unless you are assuming he would be president at that time. Clever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 August 6, 2001 - President's Daily Briefing: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116766,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Det...To_Strike_in_US Bush did NOTHING. And people who wanted to tell me what else Bush did? How about uneccessary invasion of Iraq? Lying about Bin Laden and Hussien ties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 To NZT's point, the US didn't declare war on Germany until perl harbor so under that reasoning he is just wrong. Germany declared war on us first. And people who wanted to tell me what else Bush did? How about uneccessary invasion of Iraq? Lying about Bin Laden and Hussien ties? Why was it unnecessary? Because the liberal media and celebrities told you so. History will look back to a fine moment that Democrasy took a foothold in the Middle East, IMO. And freeing millions from a tyrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Why was it unnecessary? Because the liberal media and celebrities told you so. Hit the nail right on the head there, I mean, look at all the dangerous weapons of mass destruction we found. Hey, while we're there, let's try to police more of the world and take down Hussien who wasn't really affecting us greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Hit the nail right on the head there, I mean, look at all the dangerous weapons of mass destruction we found. Hey, while we're there, let's try to police more of the world and take down Hussien who wasn't really affecting us greatly. A Read Hussein Kamel But, in August 1995, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, who had been in charge of Iraq's unconventional weapons programs, defected and made a host of stunning revelations. Until then, it had been assumed that Iraq was little threat. It was thought that most of Iraq's unconventional weapons had been destroyed during the war and that UNSCOM had slowly been mopping up what remained. But with Kamil's defection, it was learned that much of Iraq's proscribed weapons capabilities--chemical, biological, and nuclear, as well as missiles--had survived the conflict. Iraq had succeeded in concealing that from UNSCOM, while systematically turning over the least important elements of those proscribed programs.16 Instead of being little threat, Iraq was now recognized to be a considerable threat. Yet the Clinton administration regarded this information as a "godsend."17 That may seem strange, but its goal was to maintain sanctions--not to neutralize the Iraqi threat. And the new information suddenly made it very easy to maintain sanctions. At that point, Iraq fell off the nation's agenda. There was a brief flurry of reporting about the newly revealed weapons in August. But by Labor Day, Iraq ceased to be an issue. For two years--until the crises over UNSCOM began--that information received scant attention. Occasional stories about aspects of Iraq's weapons programs appeared, but the notion that Saddam retained a large and dangerous unconventional capability did not register. It was, for example, not generally known to the editors of the nation's major newspapers.18 The crises over UNSCOM that began in the fall of 1997--and ended with the termination of UNSCOM's presence in Iraq a year later--finally brought Iraq's weapons programs to national attention. Senior officials, from the president on down, repeatedly affirmed UNSCOM's importance and threatened military action. But each crisis weakened support for UNSCOM. The repeated crises also contributed to an appearance of U.S. impotence. And when the Clinton administration finally decided to strike Iraq--on the eve of the House impeachment vote--Ramadan was about to begin, limiting the bombing campaign to just four nights. Nonetheless, as Operation Desert Fox began in December 1998, Clinton affirmed, Without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to regain and again to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs . . . Mark my words [saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them.19 But the administration did virtually nothing to reestablish a viable weapons inspection regime subsequently. It took a year to get a new U.N. resolution reestablishing a much-weakened organization and when Iraq rejected the resolution, the U.S. did not respond. After all, its primary goal was to maintain sanctions. Clinton said there were WMD's: Link So Bush made it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Clever Only on Saturday mornings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 So Bush made it up? Bush exploited the suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Germany declared war on us first.Why was it unnecessary? Because the liberal media and celebrities told you so. History will look back to a fine moment that Democrasy took a foothold in the Middle East, IMO. And freeing millions from a tyrant. So is your plan for the US to eventually invade every single nation in the planet that isn't a democracy and overthrow the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deke Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Why was it unnecessary? Because the liberal media and celebrities told you so.History will look back to a fine moment that Democrasy took a foothold in the Middle East, IMO. And freeing millions from a tyrant. "Democrasy" pretty much sums it all up. At least Saddam could keep the water running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 "Democrasy" pretty much sums it all up.At least Saddam could keep the water running. Iraq is going to be a much better country then it ever was under Hussien if it isn't allready Despite being very much against this war I will concede that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 First of all, Rowdy's post was just stupid and ignorant. According to you, *everything* I say is stupid and ignorant. So what's the difference this time? However, NZT did leap. No sh!t, Sherlock. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that his rant had nothing to do with my post. It's not even worth my time to try to respond to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 "Democrasy" pretty much sums it all up.At least Saddam could keep the water running. and no schools. Sorry Mr. Perfection, you never had a typo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts