Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq - Page 4 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-06-2008, 10:33 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Not quite sure what part of what I wrote you saw as propagandist. Seemed to me to be factual and straight forward and written to counter GS continual and uninformed assertion that Iraq posed no real threat to anyone. What was propagandist was your publishing pictures of malformed infants without any scientific data about the source, birthdates, birthplaces, nationalities, autopsy results, etc. Just inflammatory material put out by an anti-American organization.
Give it up. Your argument is old as dirt. You should have joined in the conversation a few years back when this was a hot topic.

Interestingly, those who support this Administrations for all the atrocities in Iraq are the anti-Americans such as yourself, not the ones oppose it. I believe you have it ass ward.

I am just wondering why a person who would call himself "bottom".

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204

Last edited by elau; 07-06-2008 at 10:36 PM.
elau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-06-2008, 11:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Yes, I mean the UN whose inspectors left Iraq when expelled by Saddam. I mean the UN who scattered like turkeys on opening day when one bomb levelled their Iraq headquarters. I mean the UN who assisted in corrupting the food and drug program for Iraq. "UN control" is a new oxymoron.

And as for your sovereign nation. Do you mean the one that had no-fly restrictions? Their yellowcake was supposedly under UN control? Their army destroyed? Their forces expelled from Kuwait? And by 2003 had violated multiple UN sanctions? Not much sovereignty left as time passed.
You might need to do some more research. Apparently your version and that of the rest of the world is asunder.

Since we knew about this yellowcake since 1991 and had it under control by the UN since that point [your Kuwait point is out of timeline] and it stayed in place for the past 5 years, it really must have been important. Even when the inspectors were removed from Iraq, electronic monitors were in place by the UN and International Nuclear Regulatory Agencies. So the yellowcake was still watched, as was all of Saddam's nuclear program.

The violation of sanctions by the UN has nothing to do with sovereignty nor was it a reason to invade a country.

As for the sovereignty issue, UN inspectors were in Iraq the entire time they had no fly restrictions, that has nothing to do with sovereignty issues. Nor is their army strength [though if it was destroyed, how come it fought for a month after Shock and Awe?].

Their sovereignty was intact until we invaded them. That's just a part of the definition of invasion.

Good to see you got reeled into this near 20 year old story and the Bush administration's attempt to attach some relevance to both it and the administration's motives. Rove would be proud.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #33 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 12:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
You might need to do some more research. Apparently your version and that of the rest of the world is asunder.

Since we knew about this yellowcake since 1991 and had it under control by the UN since that point [your Kuwait point is out of timeline] and it stayed in place for the past 5 years, it really must have been important. Even when the inspectors were removed from Iraq, electronic monitors were in place by the UN and International Nuclear Regulatory Agencies. So the yellowcake was still watched, as was all of Saddam's nuclear program.

The violation of sanctions by the UN has nothing to do with sovereignty nor was it a reason to invade a country.

As for the sovereignty issue, UN inspectors were in Iraq the entire time they had no fly restrictions, that has nothing to do with sovereignty issues. Nor is their army strength [though if it was destroyed, how come it fought for a month after Shock and Awe?].

Their sovereignty was intact until we invaded them. That's just a part of the definition of invasion.

Good to see you got reeled into this near 20 year old story and the Bush administration's attempt to attach some relevance to both it and the administration's motives. Rove would be proud.
McBare: for a seemingly smart man, you write some pretty dumb things.

BTW, I simply reported what I had heard. If you would bother to read what I wrote about the transfer of the yellowcake, instead of what Drew wrote, you would see that I merely reported the fact. Any implication beyond that is entirely yours.

BBTW, what is your answer, all-knowing narcissus, as to why Saddam ever acquired the yellowcake. Start the tap dancing music now.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #34 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 12:48 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
McBare: for a seemingly smart man, you write some pretty dumb things.

BTW, I simply reported what I had heard. If you would bother to read what I wrote about the transfer of the yellowcake, instead of what Drew wrote, you would see that I merely reported the fact. Any implication beyond that is entirely yours.

BBTW, what is your answer, all-knowing narcissus, as to why Saddam ever acquired the yellowcake. Start the tap dancing music now.
Care to point out what you thing was dumb or was it the bolded statement? If so, I am more than happy to stand by that any day on principle and practical application.

I did read what you wrote. My comments were on the UN aspect of your post, not the "reported fact". Nice tap.

As for the reason for Saddam having Yellowcake back in 1991, as I posted earlier in this thread, I don't have a clue. But apparently it was not important or Bush1 would have taken it, or the Israelis would have taken it out or someone from the IAEA would have taken action in the minimum 17 years that WE have known about it.

As a Sovereign Government, back in 1991, I believe, whether WE liked it or not, it was Saddam's right to follow whatever path he chose as long as it did not affect US.

If you want to get into ArkRoyal's argument that we should intervene in every international situation that does not meet OUR standards or OUR interests, then so be it. That one is more than fun to discuss. For what it is worth, we are 1/195 Sovereign Countries in this big ol world. We do not run the show. It is not our job.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #35 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 01:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
According to a news report today, it has finally been decided to ship 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium ore to Canada for use in electricity production. The ore was located in Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq and the USA has been carrying on efforts to determine a suitable location for it.

How do you explain Saddam's possession of this, GS? Did he keep it to celebrate birthdays?
Saddam did not posess it, it was under the control of the UN Peacekeeping forces, remember them? You know, the ones that told us Iraq had no active nuclear program? The ones who turned out to be right?

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #36 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 01:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Not quite sure what part of what I wrote you saw as propagandist. Seemed to me to be factual and straight forward and written to counter GS continual and uninformed assertion that Iraq posed no real threat to anyone. What was propagandist was your publishing pictures of malformed infants without any scientific data about the source, birthdates, birthplaces, nationalities, autopsy results, etc. Just inflammatory material put out by an anti-American organization.
Explain to all of us how Iraq was a threat to the US. So far your evidence seems to consist of fantasies, like this yellowcake thing, or like the "mobile weapons labs" or the "rocket engines", and all the other fantasies the right wing has either stuck up our ass or tried to stick up our ass since this began. Here, try reading the truth. Note the date:

Published on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working
by Jason Leopold

CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

But immediately after the terrorist attacks on 9-11, which the Bush administration has said Iraq is partially responsible for, the President and his advisers were already making a case for war against Iraq without so much as providing a shred of evidence to back up their allegations that Iraq and its former President, Saddam Hussein, helped al-Qaida hijackers plan the catastrophe.

It was then, after the 9-11 attacks, that intelligence reports from the CIA radically changed from previous months, which said Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S., to now show Iraq had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and was in hot pursuit of a nuclear bomb. The Bush administration seized upon the reports to build public support for the war and used the information to eventually justify a preemptive strike against the country last March.

Lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are now investigating whether the intelligence information gathered by the CIA was accurate or whether the Bush administration manipulated and or exaggerated the intelligence to make a case for war.

In just seven short months, beginning as early as February 2001, Bush administration officials said Iraq went from being a threat only to its own people to posing an imminent threat to the world. Indeed, in a Feb. 12, 2001 interview with the Fox News Channel Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: “Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time.”

But Rumsfeld testified before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 18, 2002 that Iraq is close to acquiring the materials needed to build a nuclear bomb.

“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent -- that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons,” Rumsfeld testified before the committee, a transcript of which can be found at http://www.useu.be/Categories/Global...sarmament.html .

”I would not be so certain… He has, at this moment, stockpiles chemical and biological weapons, and is pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Rumsfeld never offered any evidence to support his claims, but his dire warnings of a nuclear catastrophe caused by Saddam Hussein was enough to convince most lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, that Saddam’s Iraq was doomed. Shortly after his remarks before the House Armed Services Committee, Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use “all appropriate means” to remove Saddam from power.

However, intelligence reports released by the CIA in 2001 and 2002 and more than 100 interviews top officials in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, gave to various Senate and Congressional committees and media outlets prior to 9-11 show that the U.S. never believed Saddam Hussein to be an imminent threat other than to his own people. Moreover, the CIA reported in February 2001 that Iraq was “probably” pursuing chemical and biological weapons programs but that it had no direct evidence that Iraq actually had actually obtained such weapons.

“We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since (Operation) Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely,” CIA director Tenet said in a agency report to Congress on Feb 7, 2001, which can be found at CIA: WMD Report to Congress, 1-1-00 through 6-30-00.

“We assess that since the suspension of (United Nations) inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its (chemical and biological weapons) programs… without an inspection monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.”

“Moreover, the automated video monitoring systems installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq are still not operating,” according to the 2001 CIA report. “Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraq’s WMD programs.”

Ironically, in the February 2001 report, Tenet said Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network remain the single greatest threat to U.S. interests here and abroad. Tenet eerily describes in the report a scenario that six months later would become a reality.

“Terrorists are also becoming more operationally adept and more technically sophisticated in order to defeat counter-terrorism measures. For example, as we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out "softer" targets that provide opportunities for mass casualties. Employing increasingly advanced devices and using strategies such as simultaneous attacks, the number of people killed … Usama bin Ladin and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat. Since 1998, Bin Ladin has declared all U.S. citizens legitimate targets of attack. As shown by the bombing of our embassies in Africa in 1998 and his Millennium plots last year, he is capable of planning multiple attacks with little or no warning,” Tenet said.

However, Tenet only briefly discussed the al-Qaida threat and devoted the bulk of his testimony on how to deal with the threat of rogue countries such as North Korea, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Six months later, Bin Laden was identified as the mastermind behind 9-11.

Between 1998 and early 2002, the CIA’s reports on the so-called terror threat offered no details on what types of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq obtained.

But that changed dramatically in October 2002 when the CIA issued another report, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...q_Oct_2002.htm, that this time included details of Iraq’s alleged vast chemical and biological weapons.

The October 2002 CIA report into Iraq’s WMD identifies sarin, mustard gas, VX and numerous other chemical weapons that the CIA claims Iraq had been stockpiling over the years, in stark contrast to earlier reports by Tenet that said the agency had no evidence to support such claims. And unlike testimony Tenet gave a year earlier, in which he said the CIA had no direct evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs, the intelligence information in the 2002 report, Tenet said, is rock solid.

“This information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence,” Tenet said during a CIA briefing in February, a transcript of which can be found at CIA: Tenet on the Terrorism and Iraqi Threats of '03 - 2-11-03

“It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources.”

The CIA would not comment on the differing reports between 2001 and 2002 or how the agency was able to obtain such intelligence information and corroborate it so quickly.

Still, in early 2001, while hardliners in the Bush administration were privately discussing ways to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Secretary of State Powell said the U.S. successfully “contained” Iraq in the years since the first Gulf War and that because of economic sanctions placed on the country Iraq was unable to obtain WMD.

“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”

Moreover, during a meeting with Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, in February 2001 on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies “have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions.”

Saddam’s “forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago,” Powell said during the meeting with Fischer, a transcript of which can be found at Transcript excerpts: Powell, German Foreign Minister on Iraq

“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war.”

Powell added that Iraq is “not threatening America.”

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 07-07-2008 at 01:08 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #37 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 01:11 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove View Post
Saddam did not posess it, it was under the control of the UN Peacekeeping forces, remember them? You know, the ones that told us Iraq had no active nuclear program? The ones who turned out to be right?
Nice try, FTL. Re-read my question of GS. I didn't put a time frame on the possession by Saddam like you assumed. Certainly, the IAEA didn't bring it to Iraq; Saddam did. GS hasn't bothered to answer my question because he knows the answer wouldn't support his outrageous conclusions.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #38 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 01:13 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
How about this little gem? One year before we invaded Iraq:


White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Wednesday October 9, 2002


President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.

In his address, the president reassured Americans that military action was not "imminent or unavoidable", but he made the most detailed case to date for the use of force, should it become necessary.

But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime were not supported by intelligence currently available to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons". The tubes were also mentioned by Tony Blair in his dossier of evidence presented to parliament last month.

However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons.

"I would just say there is not much support for that [nuclear] theory around here," said a department of energy specialist.

David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector who was consulted on the purpose of the aluminium tubes, said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.

Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said: "There's a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA."

Mr Albright said sceptics at the energy department's Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. He quoted a colleague at the laboratory as saying: "The administration can say what it wants and we are expected to remain silent."

There is already considerable scepticism among US intelligence officials about Mr Bush's claims of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. In his speech on Monday, Mr Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year".

An intelligence source said the man the president was referring to was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was arrested in Jordan in 2001 for his part in the "millennium plot" to bomb tourist sites there. He was subsequently released and eventually made his way to Iraq in search of treatment. However, intercepted telephone calls did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.

There is also profound scepticism among US intelligence experts about the president's claim that "Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases".

Bob Baer, a former CIA agent who tracked al-Qaida's rise, said that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998: "But there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States."

A source familiar with the September 11 investigation said: "The FBI has been pounded on to make this link."

In making his case on Monday, Mr Bush made a startling claim that the Iraqi regime was developing drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which "could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas".

"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," he warned.

US military experts confirmed that Iraq had been converting eastern European trainer jets, known as L-29s, into drones, but said that with a maximum range of a few hundred miles they were no threat to targets in the US.

"It doesn't make any sense to me if he meant United States territory," said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information.

Mr Cannistraro said the flow of intelligence to the top levels of the administration had been deliberately skewed by hawks at the Pentagon.

"CIA assessments are being put aside by the defence department in favour of intelligence they are getting from various Iraqi exiles," he said. "Machiavelli warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that is what is happening now."

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #39 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 01:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Irrelevant and old. The 550 tons of yellowcake was known before the Gulf War. My question to GS, still unanswered, is why did Saddam have it?

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #40 of 101 (permalink) Old 07-07-2008, 01:46 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Don't know, don't care. I know you think its existence is important for some reason, but even the Bush administration didn't pull it out their hat as an excuse to invade, and that's saying something. Your desperate grabs at attempting to paint Iraq as a threat to the U.S. are as laughable as my daughter's fear of bees. "You know they can only sting you right?" I tell her. "All you have to do is step on a bee to kill it, it can't kill you, and it has no desire to. You're a far greater threat than the bee, don't you think?" Of course, irrefutable logic doesn't get far in the face of irrational fear. Even so, Iraq was no bee, it's stringer had been removed in 1991.

Let me be perfectly clear, I do not now and never did give a rat's ass about WMDs in Iraq, and neither did the Bush administration in any sense other than as an excuse to forward their plans of invasion and occupation. Lots of countries have WMDs, including our own. Poor Iraq seems to be one the few that didn't, and it seems it needed them more than most.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Finally! Congress Questions the Validity of the 2002 Resolution to Invade Iraq JimSmith Off-Topic 18 02-24-2007 10:01 AM
    We had to Invade Iraq Because they Attacked us DP Off-Topic 5 10-27-2006 04:55 PM
    Pre 9/11: Powell and Rice Say Iraq NOT a Threat (Video) firstmb Off-Topic 3 09-26-2006 09:53 PM
    Iraq to invade Baghdad DriveByPoster Off-Topic 76 07-25-2006 07:37 AM
    Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq, Afghanistan: BBC JimSmith Off-Topic 20 10-17-2005 10:46 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome