I never said they gave us a right to invade Iraq. What gave us a right to take out Saddam, a terrorist and terrorism supporter, is that he would not stop dicking around. He broke the cease fire, he scammed the oil for food program the UN set up, he murdered his own people, he stole from his own people, he supported and funded terrorism. Everyone in the world knew that then and does now. The only ones who don't WANT to face reality are anti-war liberals who hate George Bush and want to blame him for everything wrong on the planet.

I never said George Bush is responsible for everything wrong on this planet. Once again you have tried to change the subject. Weren't we talking about the suicide belts you said were found during our invasion? You really feel a need to take attention away from your points when you are called out on your lame, off the top of your head, statements.
The only evidence I have seen here, or anywhere for that matter, of Saddam's support or funding of terrorists, are these memos and statements by our govenment. Are any of your 'reasons' why we went in there? No. Funny how the reasons change once the previous one is proven to be bullshit. I also notice your trend to ignore our negative actions. Can you justify our use of dirty bombs? Saddam killed how many? We have killed over 11,000 Iraqi civilians so far, with our 'attempt to help them'. Our tactics (dirty bombs)are going to keep killing the Iraqi people for decades to come. Tell me why this is ok, or even just.Good point. Why answer simple questions when you can change the subject?Just in case you missed it the first time.

What the hell is "negative actions"???? We are fighting a war for cripes sake. Get real man. How many of the Iraqi people have terrorists killed? How many roadside bombs have terrorists used to kill innocen iraqis? Can you justify terrorists killing iraqis? Simple questions. Answer them. Iraq has an elected government and the terrorists are doing all they can to bring it down to instill a facist regime. America is not the bad guy here. The terrorists are. I demand answers to my questions.

Let's get one thing straight. Are you denying Saddam paid $25000 to each family who had a member commit suicide and kill innocent people?

Once again you have failed to answer a simple question and changed the subject. Show your proof of your claim we found suicide belts when we invaded or shut up. I would be glad to answer any question you have after you answer mine which I asked you first. Don't change the subject this time.

I can't find the story, but I saw it on the news during the invasion. There were 25 my wife just told me. Saddam was a terrorist before the invasion and even Kerry said so. Your argument is with the dems. All the dem leaders said he was a terrorist and dangerous before the invasion.

And don't tell me to shut up. I don't take orders from limp liberals.

Here ya go:

U.S. Marines found a cache of suicide vests in a Baghdad school on 13 April 2003. The vests, lined with C4 plastic explosive and containing ball bearings, were believed to have been secreted by paramilitary fighters associated with the Fedayeen Saddam. Additional vests and evidence of suicide training and recruitment by Iraqis and foreign jihadis were also found during this period.

http://tinyurl.com/jv78x

The invasion was from March 20 to May 1, 2003. The suicide vests were found April 14, 2003. Now you shut up.

Why does that not surprise me. I really don't care whether you accept it or not. I am well aware liberals always discount sources when they lose arguments so this is no surprise. You have an agenda and will not let the facts stand in the way. I am not a liar. I saw it during the invasion. Now you can disprove it with facts or another article instead of just saying you don't accept the source. I stand by it. You disprove it and I will never show up here again. Go for it.

It's odd you couldn't find anything on the suicide belts being found during the invasion. I just took the first line from the passage and put it in google and found all kinds of news articles about it. Try it, you'll see.

Google this: U.S. Marines found a cache of suicide vests in a Baghdad school on 13 April 2003.

I knew you were going to say that. I don't actually think you are a liar. I do think you are brainwashed though. I did the search again(suicice bombs april 13 2003), just to see if anything has changed. I found a bunch of opinion blogs and this:
As the fog of war lifts, the propaganda model followed by the United States to sell the US-Iraq War is now clear, and the best way to understand this campaign is to consider it as psychological warfare against the US population.

The US-Iraq war started years ago, but it was only in Sept. 2002 that a decision was made to finish the job, and the hot war phase started on Mar. 19, 2003 [3]. It was in mid-September that the US sought to pass a UN resolution with onerous conditions attempting to elicit an outright Iraqi rejection, and thus create a trigger for war [4]. Unfortunately for the US, several Security Council members objected to the purpose of the proposed resolution and forced its watering down, resulting in UNSCR 1441. It is important to view the ongoing bombing campaign against Iraq in this context.
The bombing campaign beginning in September 2002 was meant to provoke the Iraqis to reject the UN resolution--which would have given the US the needed pretext for the war.

After Nov. 2002, public diplomacy sputtered along until it was completely replaced by the war drummers after Feb. 6, 2003 -- when Powell ineffectively accused Iraq of violating UNSCR 1441 in his address to the UN Security Council. From that point, it was clear that war was inevitable, and no further attempts were made to justify the war in a serious way. The justification phase was simply over, and it was time for the war-drummers to take over.

Targeting the home population.

When one thinks of "psychological warfare operations" (psyops), one thinks of airplanes dispensing leaflets over Iraqi army positions, but it also encompasses threatening, starving, and even terrorizing the enemy population. Psyops is meant to instill deep fear and defeatism. The implements of such psyops are blunt, transparent, and of questionable effectiveness. One generally doesn't think of psychological warfare as something waged against the home population; but this is perhaps the best way to appreciate the US experience during the past few months. The objective of such a campaign was to stifle dissent, garner unquestioning support, and rally people around a common symbol. Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans, have been subjected to a propaganda barrage in an effort to neutralize opposition to the war, and this fits directly into a psyops framework.

Psyops appeal to the base human behavior of large groups. In the case of the enemy, fear and even terror are likely to achieve the desired results. In the case of the home population, it is the stoking of jingoism, the "we-ism" in the crowd, the intimidation of dissent-- and the fear factor is there too. The American flag acreage on display everywhere is a clear manifestation that we are dealing with psyops targeting the home population.

Psyops specialists know that one of the strongest human tendencies is to try to conform to a group. Their objective is to create a din of jingoism pushing for "our" team intimidating others, and at the very least causing dissenters to lay low. It is not a good idea to go against the grain in the middle of a riled crowd. This is achieved by filtering the news so that it fits in with the desired message by, e.g., "embedding" of journalists, incorporation of censors within the main media networks, and shutting out alternative news sources. The result was stoking rampant jingoism in the US--and a mostly silenced anti-war movement.

A second important aspect was the cleansing and control of the news flow. As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus wrote on April 17th: "You had this absolute avalanche of material from our colleagues in Baghdad and with the actual units in the field. But in a strange sort of way a lot of it was like looking through a key-hole at a very small piece of the war." All the blood and gore were expunged, and there were only hints of Iraqi suffering. During the 1991 Gulf War the video of bombings played a central role, but this time, its usage was toned down. Some at the Pentagon must have been upset at this because the US armory had upgraded much of the video capability of its weapons. The "smart weapons" had been upgraded to "smart multimedia weapons". Alas, the images generated from these weapons are now mostly meant to make Rumsfeld chuckle. Ah! one can only imagine him watching these with Wagner playing in the background!

Another dubious claim is that regarding the discovery of a "suicide-belt factory"--with the suicide outfits neatly hung in dry cleaner's plastic. This is a rather absurd story, for the simple reason that suicide bombing was a concept foreign to Saddam Hussein's "regime". Some of the foreign volunteers fighting in Iraq may have been so disposed, but it is difficult to imagine their setting up such a factory. The propagandists seem to want to have it both ways: on the one hand Iraqi soldiers must be threatened by enforcer squads in order to coerce soldiers to fight, but on the other hand, some people are so motivated that they are willing to die for the "regime". It is highly unlikely that this story is legitimate, and it was produced to provide another after the fact anti-terrorism justification.

There is perhaps a simple proof that the suicide-belt story was a sham. If the story were true, then we would have heard it repeated many times over. Journalists would have been allowed to inspect this a bit closer. But the story disappeared in no time, and indicating that it had served its purpose. It is also curious to see the faces of some of the same soldiers reappear in several of these seemingly staged events. One of the soldiers in the suicide-belt factory seems to be the same one showing off a tacky poster in one of the palaces.
The emergence of a general rule: If a "news" item about a grotesque aspect of the regime, WMD, or terrorism, appears on TV for a day or two and then disappears, it is safe to bet that it is a fabrication. Similarly, if the reporter from such a story is not identified, then you are watching another fabrication.
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij05142003.html

---------------------------------------------------
I told you at the beginning of this thread that psyc-ops has actually admitted to making up stories and then you posted the Army link, which is really just someone's oninion, anyway.
Then when I ask you for something other than another opinion you get upset and self righteous. I have never seen anyone use a paste and post opinion and not have who they are arguing with, question the source. Come on. If I did that you would be livid.


This graph tells a different tale than you believe.