Now before anyone jumps on me here I would just like to point something out that has been on my mind. Believe me I do not want to start a fight or offend anyone here but would just like to start a civil debate on a very important topic. Hear me out please.

After Sept 11th 2001 our CIA and almost every other major intelligence agency in the world including Russia, Great Britian and even China all said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and possible ties to Osama BinLaden right.

So for OBAMA to say that if he were a United States Senator he would have voted AGAINST useing force to get rid of Saddam is alarming to me.

So in the future if he is elected President and he gets intell that says there is a high risk of an unstable dictator somewhere in the world who hates the USA and that dictator has ties to terrorist organizations and EVERY intelligence agency in the world tells him that the United States is at risk, that he will just sit there and do nothing?

My friends that to me sounds like someone I would not trust with keeping my family safe.

Now I know that the intell was wrong but at the time everyone was saying it wasn't.

How could he say he would have voted NO after we were hit on 911.

Didn't he think the threat was real. Again let's look at the facts here. Every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to give those weapons to people who would have made 911 look small!

If he becomes President and the CIA tells him that a country or terrorist organization has the possible means to obtain weapons of mass destruction from a dictaor that he will just sit by and not do anything about it? How could you say you would have voted NO. I don't ge it. Even Biden voted for it.

If so, be like Freddie C. I knew Freddie C., he was a friend of mine...And you sir are no Freddie C.



Go read up on "Curveball" sometime. Thank him for that intel. Also, why would Saddam help Bin Laden? Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow Hussein's regime, so yeah Saddam may hate America, Bin Laden may hate America, but its like Iraq/Iran (go read that up too), they HATE each other more than their shared adversary.

So again, why would Saddam, if he had nukes/WMDs, had given Al Qaeda WMDs that could be deployed on his own government?



Why would it? He argued that because Iraq hadn't attacked anyone in Israel, Turkey, Arab allies, or much less America...go read up on Pat Buchanan. You know, that Conservative who run for President in Republican primaries a few times. Anyway, he himself was against the Iraq War as well, because as he put it against NeoCon thinking that Saddam was an imminent threat: "Why would he stupid enough to step on Superman's cape?"



Ever heard of a run-on sentence?

Anyway, there is no such thing as an "unstable dictator." Only such people that rule absolutely must have consolidated their power totally, and thus stable.

But in point to your question, I posted a report days back of how Israel asked President Bush back in the Spring for the greenlight to bomb the known/possible sites of nuclear development in Iran, and Bush's Answer?

NO

So what does that tell you if YOUR President from YOUR party, who already pre-empted strike over intelligence, gave the thumbs down to Israel?



Pfft, please. If we survived the goddamn Cold War, and if you study all 46 years of it, every President will go hawkish if the situation goes for it. Yes, even liberals Kennedy and Johnson. For example, overthrowing the regimes in Iraq and South Vietnam.

Oh and that thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis, where JFK was willing to take the world into World War 3 if the Soviets didn't withdraw.



WRONG. There were people who questioned that intelligence, like a few of those UN Weapons Inspectors, and in fact Colin Powell (our Secretary of State at the time) reportedly said to an aide after his United Nations presentation: "Wouldn't it be something if we scour all over that place and find not one single WMD?"

In fact, in interrogation, Saddam reportedly told his American captors that his regime elaborated or helped exaggerate, the WMD capabilities of his regime so that the West would be "impressed/scared" by such a strength.

But there was people who spoke out at the time, who were either ignored, or told to fuck off because they weren't being "patriotic."





Let's see....those 9/11 hijackers were all Al Qaeda, which was based from Afghanistan, and most were Saudi Arabian nationals.

Yeah, I see the connection to Iraq.



Are you quoting facts or TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE?



Then hardball diplomacy will come into play, and if we must, force will be implemented.

You shouldn't take politics outside and inside offices of power so literally. Clinton bitched at Bush Sr. for doing nothing after the Chinese stomped those protestors at Tietnamen Square...and what did Clinton do in office? Enhanced our financial relationship with that same government.

But more than anything else....you really think McCain would make you feel anymore safe than Obama?






Why would he? Do tell me.

Now before anyone jumps on me here I would just like to point something out that has been on my mind. Believe me I do not want to start a fight or offend anyone here but would just like to start a civil debate on a very important topic. Hear me out please.

After Sept 11th 2001 our CIA and almost every other major intelligence agency in the world including Russia, Great Britian and even China all said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and possible ties to Osama BinLaden right. So for OBAMA to say that if he were a United States Senator he would have voted AGAINST useing force to get rid of Saddam is alarming to me. So in the future if he is elected President and he gets intell that says there is a high risk of an unstable dictator somewhere in the world who hates the USA and that dictator has ties to terrorist organizations and EVERY intelligence agency in the world tells him that the United States is at risk, that he will just sit there and do nothing? My friends that to me sounds like someone I would not trust with keeping my family safe. Now I know that the intell was wrong but at the time everyone was saying it wasn't. How could he say he would have voted NO after we were hit on 911. Didn't he think the threat was real. Again let's look at the facts here. Every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to give those weapons to people who would have made 911 look small! If he becomes President and the CIA tells him that a country or terrorist organization has the possible means to obtain weapons of mass destruction from a dictaor that he will just sit by and not do anything about it? How could you say you would have voted NO. I don't ge it. Even Biden voted for it.

This, too, is crap.

A topic like this deserves a reply only as intelligent as the original post.

Nah, that's a self-defeatist approach. Using facts and a hammer does the job much better.

You clearly are unfamiliar with the way this board works.

So lowering yourself to another's level makes more points??

Yes, I know I am too smart for you.

Iam being honest when I say I just wanted a civil debate. Sorry I even posted here. SC ,JEFF and a few others here, you guys are awesome I will always remember the good times I have had here on the boards .........Don Smitty [idiot] ......... signing off.

Hey pizzaboy, what happened to the post that you originally made agreeing that Smitty made some valid points?

You think so?

Don Smitty, for the most part, most of the people here are willing to have a civil debate. Don't let the minority few here that have absolutely nothing intelligent or worthwhile to reply make you to believe that the majority here also do not.

Indeed; a very scholarly approach.

Now where does said fucking occur?