Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Iran and Iraq: "Where are the WMD's?" - Democrats and Republicans saying the same things over again

Posted 1 year ago on May 19, 2012, 1:38 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

And they're saying the same thing.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Same thing

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. ... for the sake of protecting our friends and allies, the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein." George W Bush

Same thing

President Obama stated on January 24, 2012, "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

Same thing

U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with an understanding on Iran’s part that a military option to deal with their nuclear program remains on the table. - Mitt Romney

Same thing

"The Price Is Worth It" - Madeline Albright - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Iraq and WMD's - Bill Clinton - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

Iraq, WMD's and Bush - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-o0wV0ZH9Y

Iran WMD's and Obama - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXsHCPdFMEo

Congress budgets for war in Iran in NDAA of 2013 - "(b) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon."

Section 1221: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112d0yc3G:e737116:

Section 1222: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112d0yc3G:e739917:



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20419) 1 year ago

We should live in love, not fear. Enough of this.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

All political issues seem to come down to fear and greed. Social programs, military build ups, they are all sold to us based on fear and/or greed. Look at health care. Insurance only works because most of us don't need it. Yet we're both made afraid not to have it and told how much "free" care will get by buying it.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20419) 1 year ago

I don't speak for this movement, only my own ideas about it, but I think OWS is a transformative movement and you just clarified in my mind that maybe one of the things OWS should focus on is this very broad idea of moving our society away from being "fear based" toward a much more "love based" society. Sounds crazy, but it would be pivotal to creating a better world for us all.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

Fear always seems to be the default position for any movement, fearing ALEC, the Koch brothers, bankers, CEOs. Getting into love and brotherhood is always seen as religion. It couldn't hurt in a movement, but if I'm practical, I know it isn't going to happen.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20419) 1 year ago

We can love the Koch brothers and ALEC in a way that shows compassion to try to help them understand how harmful they are being to society. That would be the most effective way to go about changing them. Rising up in a sea of love like people did for Trayvon Martin.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

Love can be great, it doesn't necessarily change anything. I like the idea of truth and working calmly toward a goal. As for Trayvon Martin? What a mess that is turning out to be. The rising up for him is beginning to look like it caused the DA to overcharge and Zimmerman could easily get off because of it. I'm not sure the kind of massive "we want action now" emotion that rose up is anything close to love or at all useful when it comes to the law.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20419) 1 year ago

Well, ALEC has backed down regarding instituting any further "social" laws as far as I know. That would be a very positive thing to come out of it. And, regardless of the outcome, it is never wrong to stand up for what is right.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

I agree, everyone should stand up for their beliefs. I just also recognize that fear has worked for government where love hasn't done as well.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20419) 1 year ago

We can change that.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

Maybe, I'd have to see someone get get elected based on a campaign of love or even positive action rather then fear of what the opponent might do. We are a very long way from that dream.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Our children deserve a world without end, not a war without end. - Denns Kucinich

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20419) 1 year ago

This is not too much to ask.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You could see the difference -
Iraq was a war created by lies promulgated by Rs
( yes - Democrats were stupid enough to believe george + condi + dick + colin - and many voted for the war )

Iran is a warning - be prepared

Israel & US say they do not believe Iran is working to build a bomb
The Rs say Iran is building a bomb
There is a diifference

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I'm being blocked from getting access to this page through a google link

here's the summery on the lies we choose to believe to go to war

Forum Post: Congressman promotes resolution to stop gross abuse ... occupywallst.org/.../congressman-promotes-resolution-to-stop-gross-... 9 posts - 7 authors - 6 days ago 7 comments 2 hours ago by MattLHolck ..... congress near unanimously voted to go to war with Iraq. which the UN assured several time did not have any weapons of mass ... have begun to resemble obscene brothel displays where voters pick ... we now know were fictitious-- weapons of mass destruction.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I am not saying Iraq is excusable
I am saying that TODAY, the Democrats are NOT warmongering
They finally believe Eisenhower's warning

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Iran? Afghanistan? Libya? All the countries getting bombed that we're not at "war" with?

Same reasons as Iraq. Tyrant leader or WMD's. Very similar justifications.

Democrats like Dennis Kucinich are not warmongering. But there's a big difference in the type of democrat when you compare Kucinich with an Obama or a Biden or a Hillary. Big difference is how they voted on Wall Street deregulation and the patriot act. The other is about whether or not they should bomb countries.

And of course I don't want to take any blame away from the warmongering repubs. Those guys are much more blatant about it.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 1 year ago

Saddam did one thing good to his country he nationalize the oil companies .,The oil compines never forgive for that and they are back in the country and controlling the oil

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 1 year ago

Saddam had them but the UN screwed the whoe inspection process up and the man UN advisor in charge of the inspections basically became friends with Saddam and he had enough time to get rid of them. Iran will probably get a nuke and sell it to a terrorist cell so they can use it. If you don't think they are a threat than ou are an idiot. It is possible to live in peace without countries headed by radical Islamic extremists which is what Iran is. They are a serious threat.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Your sources for the first sentence?

Iran is less an enemy and threat to the United States than the United States is an enemy and threat to Iran. I imagine many Muslims consider the United States an unreasonable and implacable foe bent on destroying Islam.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The last time Iran attacked another country was when our government allied up with Saddam after he invaded Iran in the Iraq-Iran war... and they attacked Iraq after Saddam's invasion.


The price aint worth it.

Where's the proof of these WMD's... or are we just supposed to trust them like we did in Iraq? This shit is about the oil empire, in my opinion.

I like Oliver Stone's theory... but as we see this continuing under Obama... we find out there is much more to the game going on here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnFlsjhpGfw

The government needs to focus on new technology and find a way to surpass oil so this shit doesn't even matter. If they only spent as much money on that as they do on these wars... maybe. Think about it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OMG - Oil and minerals the war not necessarily of conquest but of Control. Continues ad nauseum.

Green technology is the path to peace. Develop it implement it spread it across the face of the earth.

Thorium reactors = Good for Power Generation & useless for Nuclear war.

Wind Turbines and solar cells good for areas away from hydro electric power generation capability.

Hydrogen fuel good for automotive use as it produces water vapor exhaust.

So many things are now possible that allow us to stop fighting over fossil fuel and the threat of nuclear proliferation.

If only they were used.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The greenest form of power is called conservation.

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3161) 1 year ago

I really...REALLY like this post!

[+] -4 points by danzer (-51) 1 year ago

Green technology is a scam.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Get yourself an education. I will provide you with a sample of what is possible right now.

Green Tech.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!




FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] -2 points by danzer (-51) 1 year ago

The world runs on oil .Green technology is worthless. Obama and his greenies want the world off of oil to save the planet. The planet is just fine, these green business are just a method to seperate you from your money and freedom ,and give that money to Obama's friends. Green technology , global warming , climate change ,all part of the new religion of guilt. The USA has vast resources of oil, coal and natural gas.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

That is why we have an OIL, LNG, & Gasoline Glut?

A Glut such that we are exporting these commodities.

How did such a thing occur ( Glut/Export ) ????

Hhmmmm - you don't think it could have anything to do with implementing green power sources like Wind Turbines or Solar Cells or any of that other useless green tech - Do You?

Well of course not - How Silly.

I guess we must of had the fossil fuel glut all this time and no one knew!

Wow how silly is that - and here we were all this time concerned about Fossil Fuel supply.

[-] -1 points by danzer (-51) 1 year ago

The so called glut is because people cannot afford to do much recreational driving. People are out of work. The cost for food has gone up. It had nothing to with green tech. Yes ! you are silly.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And that is why the price went down when the demand dropped off - Hey?

Oh - wait a minute - price didn't drop.


Whats up with that?

I mean you hear about cost being related to demand.

Demand goes up cost goes up - it is said.

Demand goes down cost goes down - it has been said.

Fossil fuel seems to defy the basic rules of supply and demand.

Whats up with that?

[-] -1 points by danzer (-51) 1 year ago

The price is down because the demand is down, The price has also dropped because the $ has gotten stronger.