Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nakhui on February 04, 2004, 10:34:51 AM
-
It's on CSpan right now, being read into the Congressional Record. Intel report after intel report that cautioned the White House, Defense Department, and State Department over the past 2 years that there is no credible evidence (intelligence) of WMD in Iraq.
Included are senior analyst names, reporting agencies, report dates, addressees, and de-classified content.
The internal CYA in the intel community has been going on long before the Iraqi war began, long before any call for an investigation, because everyone knew the day would come when the idiots in the White House would not find WMD and then there would be questions to be answered.
Enjoy!
-
What an arse, you sound almost happy that this may be the case. Yet, it will not be the first time a bunch of cover ups went on in the Congress. Time will tell.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
What an arse, you sound almost happy that this may be the case.
Hmmm, I would be much happier if this were the case. I'd much rather have WMD in Iraq turn out to be the "spoonfull of sugar that helps the policy go down." Much better for this to be the result of an administration willing to do anything to remove Sadam From Power than to be the result of REALLY REALLY ****ty intel. Which is easier to fix, the administration or the Intel system?
I guess we'll find out in November.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Hmmm, I would be much happier if this were the case. I'd much rather have WMD in Iraq turn out to be the "spoonfull of sugar that helps the policy go down." Much better for this to be the result of an administration willing to do anything to remove Sadam From Power than to be the result of REALLY REALLY ****ty intel. Which is easier to fix, the administration or the Intel system?
I guess we'll find out in November.
-Sik
:lol
Spoken like a true liberal.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
:lol
Spoken like a true liberal.
And surprisingly enough I'm not one.
-Sik
-
Are you talking about the testimony by David Kaye?? I think thats his name..
-
LMAO
Also bush said he wanted to appoint a commision much like the Warren commision to find out exactly what went wrong...
Jon Stewart: Ahh that'll fix things.. I mean, they really summed up and left no questions unanswered in that whole kennedy thing..
-
If you dont agree with everything Mr bush number 2 does. your obviously an unamerican liberal.
-
Well, I view this as a good thing. Let's get it all out in the open.
But if there's no clear indictment of the current administration you're still going to say this investigation will be skewed, defanged and covered up, right?
In other words, if they don't agree with your preconceived notions, then it is all wrong, a conspiracy and you're still the only one with the right answer? Have I missed it by much?
I'm on record here on this BBS, long prior to the invasion, saying that Iraqi WMD had to be found to justify the invasion of another sovereign nation. I'm also on record as saying, in the event no WMD are found, that Bush will have to be held accountable for wasting our solider's lives and our nation's treasure in a huge mistake.
I believed what they said prior to the invasion. As I said before, they've got Saddam now and if they can't squeeze the WMD info out of the big cheese then I'm going to have to assume they screwed up. Then there must be accountability/responsiblity.
But I'm not ready to jump on your particular bandwagon just yet.
Especially not the conspiracy theory aspect of it all. You fail to realize that the Intel guys are going into CYA mode. They don't want to be held accountable/responsible either.
For your reading pleasure, while the actual investigation progresses:
Weapons of mass deception (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001848693_krauthammer02.html)
Congress needs to find out why, with all our resources, we had not a clue that this was going on. But Kay makes clear that Bush was relying on what the intelligence agencies were telling him. Kay contradicts the reckless Democratic charges that Bush cooked the books. "All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that (Iraq) had WMD."
And here's another one from Debka. This is a somewhat "fringe" site that is perhaps the counterbalance to your fringe conspiracy theories. I take most of what they print with a grain of salt but it's an Israeli site suspected to be a "mouthpiece" for things the Israeli government wants known. That would include propaganda as well as truth. Still, they do "scoop" other newsources now and again with some interesting stuff. So, this may or may not be true. But I'm sure an open-minded seeker of the truth like yourself will always want to examine both sides of the issue.
Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=780)
Enjoy!
-
At the very least your government says "we may be wrong", our says it's the UN fault: "Why did they keep telling Iraq to disarm if there were no WMD? It's their fault for leading us to think they had them".
Comedy central at its best.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, I view this as a good thing. Let's get it all out in the open.
But if there's no clear indictment of the current administration you're still going to say this investigation will be skewed, defanged and covered up, right?
I understand you don't like my characterization that Bush is a liar.
I can understand where you're coming from, and hey after all, you only know what the millions of other media fed Americans know.
Let's see what do we know?
No STOCK PILES of WMD in Iraq - proven.
Did Bush lie? Be patient grasshopper.
You have a quote from Kay.... hmmm... just like all those other reliable quotes about WMD in Iraq. What does that prove? How do you know that Kay's opinion is right or wrong - just because he says so? Naive!
Well here's a hint...
Kay was appointed to run a Fool's Errand.
I alluded to documents and reports in earliers posts - well now. Today some facts about them became open sourced and placed on the record.
You really have me wrong. I don't think the investigations will be skewed.
There's STOCK PILES of freaking evidence to show that it is the White House that skewed the intel reports.
Where's the Proof! Coming! Be Patient.
And yes you'll read stories about it's the intelligence communities fault. And then you'll read stories that it's the White House's fault.
The finger pointing is starting.
No the Intel Community is not just starting to CYA - not in reaction to this.
So who's telling the truth?
What did I say about matching up what was said and what has come to be known as True or False.
Back to my Pattern theory - Could start thinking for your self and stop letting others think for you. Just because you read it in the news doesn't make it true.
And at this point, the process is really out of the White House's control.
Hint: Two weeks ago Bush didn't want an investigation.
Ding! This week he's all in favor of it.
Why the sudden change of mind - He has no freaking choice!
There's a lot of smart people who just don't like being lied too, and they are the ones who want to know the truth - Bush already knows the truth.
Powell is already distancing himself (at least trying to... the finger pointing is starting!).
Ok here's an example for you: Did you read Saturday's Washington post? The story I'm referring too... no doubt originated from a State Department source, it talked about how Powell repeatedly asked for the CIA to confirm the 10 most solid WMD items, and then rather subtlely it mentions that the CIA intel reports which were sent to the White House came back to the State Department drastically changed.
Did you catch that liberal TV rag 60 minutes tonight?
We'll see...
-
Originally posted by kappa
Are you talking about the testimony by David Kaye?? I think thats his name..
In Senate testimony, Kay placed the blame for overestimating Iraq's weapons capabilities squarely on the intelligence community and said he had seen no evidence that administration officials put pressure on analysts to come up with preconceived results.
Kay based his exoneration of the administration on the fact that intelligence analysts who helped him in the search for illicit weapons in Iraq repeatedly apologized for being so far off base in their prewar estimates. Not a single analyst complained to him of any pressure being applied.
-
But you see.. Kay is part of the conspiracy.
No one will tell the truth in this. No one.
Only Nexus knows the truth.
;)
BTW, I'm very patient. But at absolute max it stretches to the first Tuesday in November.
-
we are USA and allies, we not need to appology anyone for anything
btw its saddam foult, he should have this wmd ;-)
-
Toad if you believe an Israeli 'fringe' site, which you admit is broadcasting Israeli propaganda as part of its modus operandi, is going to have anything good to say about Syria, I'll be very disappointed. ;)
-
LIbya...OPEN Sits doors..admits WMD projects...!!!!!!!!!!!!1
YAAA
USA is not takne there sheite anymore..
SAlute are soldiers
-
Erm... Libya wanted to come in from the cold a decade ago and give up its WMD programs, but the US State Department didn't seem to want to listen.
-
GS: It doesn't mean that yet.
Dowding: Note I said it was a fringe site; I didn't say I believed all of it but I did say they occasionally "scoop" the other news outlets. IE: they have been "right" first a few times that I've noticed.
Now, both of you, if 5 years from now after the world decides Bush and Blair were wrong, Syria comes clean and gives up some old Iraqi WMD.... will you all apologize?
Libya a decade ago? I don't think so.
Libya -bomb finger at Pak (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040105/asp/foreign/story_2752484.asp)
London, Jan. 4 (PTI): Libya bought plans to make a nuclear bomb from Pakistani scientists for “millions of pounds”, Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, son of Libyan chief colonel Muammar Gadaffi, has admitted...
In an interview published in the Sunday Times today, 32-year-old Saif said his country had spent $40 million on its quest to acquire nuclear capability. Some of the “five-star Libyan scientists” working on the bomb had trained in Britain, he claimed. He confirmed that Libya had bought nuclear components, including centrifuges, from a variety of black market dealers.
....British and American experts who went to inspect Libyan weapons sites were taken aback when they found that nuclear scientists working for Gadaffi had what one western official described as a “full bomb dossier” from the Pakistanis....
Western officials said the Pakistani scientists had received payments from Libya — which they said could have been substantially higher, even as much as $100 million — over several years, starting in the late 1990s. [/u]
Guess they were going to "warm up" with nukes?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So does this mean that the French, Germans and Russians were right when dismissing your "evidence" as unreliable? Will you apologize to them and the world for illegally invading another nation based on faulty intelligence? :D
That is a fair request GS, one I will vote for when the French, German, and Russian Governments admit to illegally supplying the Iraqi's with weapons and ammunition after a ban on such sales.
-
Nakhui/Nexus, you are a troubled little man.
Originally posted by Nakhui
I understand you don't like my characterization that Bush is a liar.
If Bush is a 'liar' then so are most of the Democrats that were in favor of the war - including those who have recently found it convinient to turncoat now that theyve decided to run for President.
Let's see what do we know?
No STOCK PILES of WMD in Iraq - proven.
You cant prove a negative. Prove to me that WMD dont exist in Iraq. I wont hold my breath.
You have a quote from Kay.... hmmm... just like all those other reliable quotes about WMD in Iraq. What does that prove? How do you know that Kay's opinion is right or wrong - just because he says so? Naive!
The quote from Kay seems to douse the Liberal fire which is fueled by 'Bush is a Liar' syndrome (a serious condition). You see - if Bush acted on what he believed to be correct information, the blame is not necessarily his. I have yet to see any evidence brought forth that Bush is indeed a 'liar' (meaning that he stated information as truth when he knew it to be false at the time of statement).
Well here's a hint...
Kay was appointed to run a Fool's Errand.
I alluded to documents and reports in earliers posts - well now. Today some facts about them became open sourced and placed on the record.
You really have me wrong. I don't think the investigations will be skewed.
There's STOCK PILES of freaking evidence to show that it is the White House that skewed the intel reports.
Where's the Proof! Coming! Be Patient.
And yes you'll read stories about it's the intelligence communities fault. And then you'll read stories that it's the White House's fault.
The finger pointing is starting.
No the Intel Community is not just starting to CYA - not in reaction to this.
So who's telling the truth?
What did I say about matching up what was said and what has come to be known as True or False.
Back to my Pattern theory - Could start thinking for your self and stop letting others think for you. Just because you read it in the news doesn't make it true.
And at this point, the process is really out of the White House's control.
Hint: Two weeks ago Bush didn't want an investigation.
Ding! This week he's all in favor of it.
Why the sudden change of mind - He has no freaking choice!
There's a lot of smart people who just don't like being lied too, and they are the ones who want to know the truth - Bush already knows the truth.
Powell is already distancing himself (at least trying to... the finger pointing is starting!).
Ok here's an example for you: Did you read Saturday's Washington post? The story I'm referring too... no doubt originated from a State Department source, it talked about how Powell repeatedly asked for the CIA to confirm the 10 most solid WMD items, and then rather subtlely it mentions that the CIA intel reports which were sent to the White House came back to the State Department drastically changed.
Did you catch that liberal TV rag 60 minutes tonight?
We'll see...
The rest of this post youre talking alot but not saying much. I have a vision in my head of a crazed mental patient dancing up and down with drool dripping from a curved grin while clutching a torch in one hand and a rope in the other.
As much as you want it to be - the torch is not lit and the rope is not tied. You have nothing but spin to work with here - its rather ironic that your entire argument is based on the principal that no evidence exists.
Dont let that stop your bed pan tossing fun, though.
-
Why, for being totally wrong about the WMD issue and not wholeheartedly supporting UN action, of course!
After all, you want an apology if the intel was faulty. So, why not the reverse if the intel was right?
-
This was all happening in the 1990s. Libya wanted start a dialogue on ending the sanctions that were crippling the country (the oil-tech of the West was vital to the economy). This was attempted through a US intermediary at several stages - early nineties and later. The handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects in '99 was a concession to that. The US State Department didn't want to know.
Now Bush wants to paint the Libyan WMD climbdown as a justification for the Iraq war, when it could have been done much earlier.
BTW, British intelligence has always seen Gadaffi's WMD program as 'aspirational' rather than physical. They don't possess any nukes and don't have the neccessary technology to make any at this time.
BTW, apologize for what and to who?
-
tennet came out today and stated that nowhere in his reports to the white house did he state that iraq was a grave and imminent threat. So where did bush and blair come up with this idea?
-
The wriggling over the 45 minute claim is extraordinary. Now they (Blair and Hoon) are saying it related to battlefield weapons only and that it wouldn't have swung people's judgement to know that. Which is highly amusing, when you remember that it was included in a dossier designed to show that Iraq had WMD posing an imminent threat to the UK and was used in Parliamentary debates as a justification for war.
It's a mess pure and simple.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But you see.. Kay is part of the conspiracy.
No one will tell the truth in this. No one.
Only Nexus knows the truth. ;)
LOL :rofl
You got me on that one!
Hey... close your eyes and cover your ears all you want.
Well see in the next two/three months what the truth is.
This is very very very hot in Washington and the DOD right now!
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I have yet to see any evidence brought forth that Bush is indeed a 'liar' (meaning that he stated information as truth when he knew it to be false at the time of statement).
You need to get out of your room more or at least pay attention.
State of the Union Address 2003, Bush claimed there was a Niger-Iraq nuclear connection. He was told a year before by the CIA that the intel was bogus and there was no connection. He was told once again when his speach was reviewed by the CIA just before the State of the Union address. Yet he continued to use that information in his speach.
When you know something is not true and you continue to say it -that's a lie! At least that's my point of view... you may disagree.
Want more information?
Here check out this liberal Web Rag for your edification - or not.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/beyond-niger.html
But Wait... how about the State Department explaining the incident or are they too liberal for you?
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03070700.htm
Former Ambassador Wilson wrote an article in the WSJ exposing this lie - becuase it was exactly that!
And then shortly after the article was printed a senior White House official leaked to Robert Novak, a reporter, that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative, there by blowing her cover and possibly endangering her life and her contacts in other countries.
When people get caught telling lies.. they tend to get irrationally angry... in this case, they committed a felony... gee that must be why the Justice department is investigating the White House now!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml
The evidence of what the Intel Community told the White House - is well documented - Those documents of course are classified so you don't know what they say. As I said in my original post, the fact of there existences is now established in open source and were read in to the congressional record yesterday: document numbers, dates, authors, and addressees. Evidence of what the White House was told.
All you know is what the the White House has revealed to the public, which is a twisted and skewed version of the original intel reports and that is also what the Congress was told.
The Congress, Kay, and the American public were all mislead by the White House. What you think was original intel... isn't.
Compare the original reports with what the White House has said and you'll see who's at fault.
Did you read the article in Saturday's Washington Post, did you see 60 minutes last night, did you watch CSpan yesterday?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
Bush may be able to leak to Fox News what he wants the American people to hear. But the people who really know how the system works and the truth aren't buying his BS!
:rofl
-
If Bush is a 'liar' then so are most of the Democrats that were in favor of the war - including those who have recently found it convinient to turncoat now that theyve decided to run for President.
I wouldn't go that far Saur. The Democratic politicians in question were/are cowardly, visionless, positionless, leadership challenged, politically expedient, self interested Washington political tools -- but liars is a bit of a stretch. Does willfully negligent work?
IMO everybody, including Bush just "assumed" they were there. But, since WMD were only a means to an end -- the message that best sold the administration's Iraq policy to the American people after the initial Al Queda angle fell through -- there wasn't a real focus on actually confirming what was regarded as conventional wisdom. Then, ironically, it just bit them in the ass.
Charon
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! No. The intel has already been proven wrong, I belive Mr. Key has done that.
Not in everyone's mind; only those so predisposed from the beginning.
Google up the transcript of Kay's recent Senate appearance and see what else he had to say. You've got the snippets you wanted to hear; why not read the entirety of what he said.
For instance, that SH was clearly in violation of 1441.
-
but wait a min. i thought you guys dont support the UN. so how could you support 1411?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
This was all happening in the 1990s. Libya wanted start a dialogue on ending the sanctions that were crippling the country (the oil-tech of the West was vital to the economy). This was attempted through a US intermediary at several stages - early nineties and later. The handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects in '99 was a concession to that. The US State Department didn't want to know.
Now Bush wants to paint the Libyan WMD climbdown as a justification for the Iraq war, when it could have been done much earlier.
BTW, British intelligence has always seen Gadaffi's WMD program as 'aspirational' rather than physical. They don't possess any nukes and don't have the neccessary technology to make any at this time.
BTW, apologize for what and to who?
Sources?
-
Let's see, the Libyans were repentant a decade ago <~1994> but the mean old US wouldn't talk to them.
They now admit to buying nuke tech from the Paki scientist in the "late 1990's". Wouldn't that be post-1995? Doesn't sound like they were trying to come in from the Cold there.
They didn't admit Lockerbie until 1999, something a bit less than a decade ago.
Sorry, these aren't the actions of a leader that wants rapproachment with the US.
-
Remind us again what was violated in resolution 1441?
-
Funny...the way it works, Congress sees the same intel reports that the President and his Cabinet (with the exception of one report that has to do with daily threat levels). So, Congress saw the same info and votes, by a vast majority, in favor of the Iraq invasion. I guess Congress specifically twisted and distorted the information as well. That would include some of our "favorite" liberals in Congress, mind you.
Additionally, Saddam was required "by UN resolution" to provide evidence of the destruction of his NBC weapons programs. The terms of that resolution stated, in no uncertain terms, that failure to comply would result in the resumption of hostilities. Yes, it left wiggle room to give ole Saddam a chance, but the intention is clear. Saddam has admitted that he purposely and with malice declined to adhere to the UN resolutions he agreed to in the first place.
Saddam had WMDs in 1990. We have nothing to suggest that he did not have them anymore. Former president William Jefferson Clinton confirmed that the information President George W. Bush cited was the same information he (Clinton) saw on his desk all through his administration...after all, that is why he maintained the no-fly zone and authorized several raids against Iraq. Guess the Clinton adminstration was lying too?
I am sick and friggin tired of all these babies that aren't getting their way and don't have "their guy" in the White House, or a majority in Congress and so they go around crying over anything and everything. To the point that they are willing to see the USA destroyed rather let some one they don't like do some good.
One person knows for sure whether Saddam had WMDs: Saddam. Human error being what it is, everything thing else, no matter how good the intel, is a best guess based on the information at hand.
Get over the idea that everyone is a liar just because your favorite politicians are. Maybe George Dubya lied...and if he did, he needs to be held accountable. But unless some one can prove it, we still live in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA where a man (even the President) is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Go ahead...spew out some more garbage. I am sure there are plenty, like you, that are just waiting to slurp it up and regurgitate it back out.
-
Bodhi: What an arse, you sound almost happy that this may be the case. Yet, it will not be the first time a bunch of cover ups went on in the Congress. Time will tell.
If that is true - that the intelligence community warned the administration about the absense of credible evidence - that certainly makes me happy.
Having only a corrupt administration that would lie the country into an agressive war is vastly preferable to having a corrupt intelligence community that would willingly cooperate with corrupt administration in lying the country into an agressive war.
because everyone knew the day would come when the idiots in the White House would not find WMD
Too bad none of them had the guts to stand up and say so when Powel was testifying.
GScholz: So does this mean that the French, Germans and Russians were right when dismissing your "evidence" as unreliable? Will you apologize to them and the world for illegally invading another nation based on faulty intelligence?
:D :D :D :D :D :D ....
Toad: Libya a decade ago? I don't think so.
How about this - from the Jude Wanniski - Why the Pentagon Needs Villains (http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3268)
...Libya and Qaddafi have been trying to reach a diplomatic solution to their differences with the USA for years -- ever since it became clear the Cold War was ending with their patrons in Moscow on the losing side.
Gary Hart, a Senate Democrat from Colorado who won the New Hampshire presidential primary in 1984 and for awhile looked like he might be the nominee, on Sunday wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, “My Secret Talks With Libya, and Why They Went Nowhere.” He was approached by Libyans in 1992 when he was a private citizen, they asking him to serve as intermediary with the US State Department to work out a diplomatic resolution to the estrangement. It is a role Jimmy Carter has played in similar situations.
Hart worked at it for several months, but no matter how open-ended the offers from Tripoli, the State Department was not interested. Hart tells me he has always assumed the administration preferred to have Libya remain “a villain.”
Bodhi: I will vote for when the French, German, and Russian Governments admit to illegally supplying the Iraqi's with weapons and ammunition after a ban on such sales.
You sure you do not want them to appologize for not suplying enough weaponry to Iraq to be able to defend itself from unjust aggression?
Isn't that their responcibility under NPT? When a nuke-armed country attacks a country that agreed not to aquire nukes, shouldn't the other nuclear countries provide defence for it?
Saurdaukar: You cant prove a negative. Prove to me that WMD dont exist in Iraq. I wont hold my breath.
But that is not the issue. US invaded not because there could have been WMDs in Iraq but because it claimed to have evidence.
It is proven that US did not and does not have evidence - by its failure to present any.
Toad: Now, both of you, if 5 years from now after the world decides Bush and Blair were wrong, Syria comes clean and gives up some old Iraqi WMD
I am sure it will. That "old Iraqi WMD" is probably being manufactured right now in New Jersey and my tax money is being collected to pay Syria for "owning up to it".
I do not believe it will be found in 5 years, though - most likely it will be found 2 weeks before November elections.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
How about this - from the Jude Wanniski - Why the Pentagon Needs Villains (http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3268)
miko
Not bad, for an editorial (An opinion)
-
Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html)
You guys might as well read it all.
But, for 10Bears, from the preliminary remarks:
In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.
We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.
-
Well, Miko, to me actions speak louder than words.
December 21, 1988, Libya sponsored the bombing of Pan Am 103. 1991 US and Britain accused Libyan secret agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah of the mass murder. In 1992 the Libyans approach Hart to plead their case with the US Government, when no mean old conspiring Republicans held the White House.
If they wanted to kiss-kiss, be nice and make up, I guess they could have just handed over Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah when Hart was trying to make their case.
That would have had a better chance of success, don't you think?
Instead, they waited until August 14 2003 to admit culpability.
Topping this off is the aforementioned purchase of nuke tech from the Pakistani in the late '90's. Which is something else the US intel community was watching.
Hard to make up with someone that blows airliners out of the sky and attempts to violate the NPT while denying it.
Just my .02.
Libya could have had rapproachment a long time ago IF they really had wanted to do so.
-
Toad: Well, Miko, to me actions speak louder than words.
If they wanted to kiss-kiss, be nice and make up, I guess they could have just handed over Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah when Hart was trying to make their case....
I guess they could.
But did we really wanted them? The Cold War ended, the whole military and industrial complex with its enourmous influence was due to be scrapped.
A good - or at least credible to the gullible US public - enemy was worth its weight in gold. How come you are ready to believe that the foreign scoundrels are the ones breaking the peace talks but not the domestic scoundrels that stand to make trillions from it?
I've actually read the conditions of the US-North Korea agreement of 94 to know that whatever NK did, the US did not discharge it's obligations and had no intention of do so.
Libya must have wanted some guarantees for the reconciliatory jestures it offered US. After all, such steps are not free to them but very expensive politically.
If they unilaterally gave in to US, without a show of dignified negotiations or reciprocal jestures, the regime would have lost all respect and earned a lot of internal enemies among fundamantalists. If US were not there to compensate for it with opening trade or some other action, the regime would have fallen.
History is full of such examples.
Saddam Hussein did not have any WMDs and he was destroying his missiles days before US invaded anyway. He was giving up instead of preparing to fight - and that only encouraged US.
When Germany agreed to the armstice in 1918 and laid down the weapons, the brits and french did not stop the blockade of german ports.
Thousands of german woman and children starved to death for no reason whatsoever in peacetime - just because of the spite of brits and french. Then it was made to assume the full responsibility for starting the war - which was started by Serba, Austria, Russia and France before Germany ever got dragged in due to allied obligations - and pay for it, which subjected the people to more deprivations.
No wonder that the reconcilatory regimes failed in favor of nazis.
Some american indians sold their land, did not get the money, got starved without land or money, rebelled to get the land back and were exterminated.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Miko: History is full of such examples.
What revisionist history book are you reading?
Can I get an ISBN please. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Hmmm, I would be much happier if this were the case. I'd much rather have WMD in Iraq turn out to be the "spoonfull of sugar that helps the policy go down." Much better for this to be the result of an administration willing to do anything to remove Sadam From Power than to be the result of REALLY REALLY ****ty intel. Which is easier to fix, the administration or the Intel system?
I guess we'll find out in November.
-Sik
My girlfriend is from Fairfax.
-
What's with the 'mean old USA' thing, Toad? If you can't post without the Grunherzian overtones, I won't bother to engage in future. And you still haven't told me who I'm supposed to apologise to... you perhaps?
Gary Hart - that was his name. I was wracking my brains trying to think who the guy was so I could dig up some sources re-telling the story. Why was there no pursuit of the Hart angle? Surely it was worth at least some effort to see how serious the Libyans were.
-
It was "mean old Republicans in the White House" wasn't it? Oh, wait.. I see I did say mean old US too. Well, just trying to save some of the electronic ink. I mean, haven't you heard? Bush is worse than Hitler. It's true. I read it right here on this BBS. Just thought we'd get that out of the way right off.
Engage? Why we've only just met! There's got to be some candlelight dinners and stuff at least.
Apologize? Well I think GS wanted me or us or the USA or something to apologize to the French, Germans and Russians. So you or them or something can apologize to the Americans. Ask Scholz just how this is supposed to work; it's his idea.
Now, the Hart angle? Well, let's see. As I said, the US and Britain had just accused Libya of state sponsored terrorism in '91. This Hart thing is post-election right? Clinton in the White House. So why would Clinton not follow up on this offer presented by a fellow Democrat? My only guess would be because of Pan Am 103 and the Libyans denial of involvement.
-
OK, engage was the wrong word. A bit too Top Gun or gay or both.
You seem to be mistakening me for someone who really cares about your two party system (I barely have any interest in the British 2 and half party system as it is). Before Bush II came along, I really couldn't care less about who was in the White House. Clinton, Bush or Bush II it doesn't matter. But the thing about this Iraq war is that we've been pulled into it and the issues surrounding have become a little more interesting for me. So when it is claimed Libya have backed down because of the Iraq invasion, it's interesting to see that, in actual fact, it could have been done much earlier or at least attempted without the need for 750 Coalition dead and thousands of dead Iraqis.
The 'Bush is Hitler' argument is a straw man if ever there was one.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
And surprisingly enough I'm not one.
-Sik
...but if you keep disagreeing with Bodhi, you will be. ;)
-
Gscholz-
Yes, the US owes Germany, France, and Russia an apology over the apparent non-existence of WMD.
Germany, France, and Russia owe the US an apology for turning the other way on Iraq's disobedience on 1441.
Fair deal? After all, if you want to believe part of the Kaye report, better be prepared to face it all. I can- can you?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You seem to be mistakening me for someone who really cares about your two party system (
I'm not mistaking you for anyone at all. Your interest in our two party system is irrelevant.
Point is that a Democratic administration, particularly Clinton's, would be much more open to dialogue with Libya than say Reagan's or Bush I's. Yet even Clinton apparently would have nothing to do with the Libya/Hart proposal.
You asked for a reason for that. Quite obviously, IMO, that reason was Pan Am 103. Libya had just been accused of state sponsored terroism. No one, not Reagan, Bush I or Clinton would "normalize" relations in that situation without some accountability or atonement from Libya.
In other words, like so many other tin-pot dictators, Ghadaffi misjudged his situation and his "negotiating power".
The idea that it "could have been done much earlier" is totally dependent on LIBYA, not the USA. Had Libya confessed it's guilt, apologized, come clean about it's weapons programs (yeah, they were trying to acquire nukes back then too; took till the late '90's to find someone that would help them circumvent the NPT) maybe things would have been different.
It wasn't OUR responsibility to wipe the slate clean and give them "one more chance". Blowing an airliner out of the sky isn't a misdemeanor.
Remember also that the argument is not and never has been that we invaded Iraq to get Libya to give up it's WMD programs. We invaded Iraq to end Iraqi WMD programs. Admittedly the jury is still out on that, but we're nearing the end of the discussion now.
The 'Bush is Hitler' argument is a straw man if ever there was one.
Indeed. Put "Bush AND Hitler" in the BBS search specifying "The O-Club". Seven pages of threads.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Indeed. Put "Bush AND Hitler" in the BBS search specifying "The O-Club". Seven pages of threads.
Try "Bush AND Clinton" give eleven pages so Clinton == hitler.
Should I explain how your search is flawed ?
-
The only argument I'm making is that for a "straw man argument" it sure gets used a lot here.
Argue that. ;)
-
heuuuu ...
I don't know clearly what a "straw man argument" is :)
I did a "Bush AND straffo" search it gave me only 17 threads so I guess straffo != hitler ... yet :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
heuuuu ...
I don't know clearly what a "straw man argument" is :)
I did a "Bush AND straffo" search it gave me only 17 threads so I guess straffo != hitler ... yet :D
lmao straffo
-
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
But, OK; none of us have ever read that particular straw man argument here in the O'Club.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But, OK; none of us have ever read that particular straw man argument here in the O'Club.
I swear it!
crossing my fingers in my back
-
Originally posted by Charon
I wouldn't go that far Saur. The Democratic politicians in question were/are cowardly, visionless, positionless, leadership challenged, politically expedient, self interested Washington political tools -- but liars is a bit of a stretch. Does willfully negligent work?
Charon
I agree - thats kind of my point. I wouldnt accuse those Democrats of lying any more than I would Bush. At worst, they made decisions with bad information - thats not "lying."
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I agree - thats kind of my point. I wouldnt accuse those Democrats of lying any more than I would Bush. At worst, they made decisions with bad information - thats not "lying."
Well Clinton did lie about having sex...
BTW since when is Bush Not Hitler... you revisionists always rewriting history! ;)
And you know historically the economy has always done well with a democratic President, and always very bad with a Republican in office.... so if you want he economy to improve vote for the liberal!
-
Thats right Nexus, Clinton did lie about Lewinsky.
You see- when faced with the question;
"Did you engage in sexual actions with Ms. Lewinski?"
Clinton responded;
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."
When he knew the answer was 'Yes" (cause he was there).
When you answer 'No' when you are well aware than the truthful answer is 'Yes' thats lying.
Acting on bad information you didnt know was bad in the first place isnt lying.
In addition, effects on the economy ususally take years following policy implementation and are unrelated to who is in office for the most part.
-
and no tape recorder in the office he made damn shure of that.
-
DAMN YOU BILL CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!
After 3 years of NOT being in office your presidecy is STILL failing america!!!!
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Thats right Nexus, Clinton did lie about Lewinsky.
You see- when faced with the question;
"Did you engage in sexual actions with Ms. Lewinski?"
Clinton responded;
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."
When he knew the answer was 'Yes" (cause he was there).
When you answer 'No' when you are well aware than the truthful answer is 'Yes' thats lying.
Acting on bad information you didnt know was bad in the first place isnt lying.
In addition, effects on the economy ususally take years following policy implementation and are unrelated to who is in office for the most part.
I see your logic now... so Bush HW set up such a good economic policy with a Democratic Congress that it carried Clinton for 8 years of phenominal prosperity...
But Clinton was such a screw up with a Republican Congress that it took 8 years pluse a little into Bush Dubya's administration before the economy really got bad.
One thing I don't understand how was it that Clinton was able to balance the budget and create a surplus? Is that credit given to HW?
And the fact that Dubya was able to take that surplus give it to the rich and then screw the pooch all in one year... that's Clinton's fault?
I have this theory that... oval office blow jobs help inflate the prosperity of the US economy.
Perhaps Dubya should get a few!
Oh yahand.... Bush is Hitler - it's obviously the same Nazi smirk minus the mustache. :rofl
-
Clearly this entire Clinton episode is nothing more than a fluffed chewbacca defense... As well as the other thread circulating around..
-
You're not really going to try and make the case that any President controls the business cycle are you? Or that with 100 Senators and 435 Representatives that the President is the one man solely responsible for US economic and tax related lawmaking?
Are you?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're not really going to try and make the case that any President controls the business cycle are you? Or that with 100 Senators and 435 Representatives that the President is the one man solely responsible for US economic and tax related lawmaking?
Are you?
Who Me? No.
In fact I don't believe the President or the Congress have any control over the economy [that would be the little guy behind the
curtain who controls the money flow - Alan Greenspan].
If they did, they would probably keep it going up - wouldn't you
agree?
They do have control over who they give tax relief too - don't they!
It's amazing how often tax law changes!
-
That would be a fair deal if you were right on their initial intent. France, Germany and Russia did believe that Iraq might have hidden away WMD, but they did not agree that an invasion was the solution.
That's the prob. They signed 1441 knowing full well what America would do when Iraq was found in breach. To say they did not know would be foolish. No one who watched the news could make any mistake about what Bush intended to do, and what the purpose of 1441 was. It was the final line in the sand. Frances, Germany, and Russia were tacitly giving the green light to Bush by signing that paper.
-
BTW, reparations my ass. We are in there right now rebuilding. Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions whether or not the UN cared to do anything about it. That squares things as far as I'm concerned.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
1441 does not authorize military action against Iraq. The UN has to specifically authorize military action by mandating member nations to act on its behalf. That was the battle the US lost in the UNSC against France, Germany and Russia among others. The UN did not authorize this war, and your government took action anyway citing self-defence as the reason. Now that it is clear Iraq had no WMD and was no imminent threat to the US, it is also clear that the war was illegal.
I understand precisely how the UN is supposed to work, and the role of the Security Counsel. I also realize neither did their job. In hindsight the US probably shouldn't have been in there... but using your "if it had been their intent" line of thinking, if the intent had been to mislead, you would be right. Once again, the Kaye report does not support this assertion. The Kaye report DOES say Iraq was in breach, which means the US WAS right about that, and underscores once again the indecision and and impotence of the UN and UNSC.
Neither side is gonna get a free ride.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Erm... Libya wanted to come in from the cold a decade ago and give up its WMD programs, but the US State Department didn't seem to want to listen.
Does actively sponsering terror factor in or are you telling me they are innocent like Saddam?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Rebuilding the Iraq you destroyed hardly makes up for all those lives that were lost.
You stated earlier that we killed thousands of innocent Iraqi's and lost thousands of our own....prove it.
We destroyed Iraq?
I don't think your honest.
-
Toad - the straw man I was referring to is the 'you're saying Bush is Hitler' argument that is often dragged out in these type of discussions. How is it relevant? You putting 'Bush and Hitler' together in the search engine spawns so many results precisely because it is used by the pro-war types to refute arguments made by the anti-war types. Ever consider that? Do you not see the moronic 'BOOOSHH, AMREEEKA IS HITLER' crap spawned by Grunherz and Co.?
Rude - Oh my. When have I said Saddam was innocent? Gaddaffi seemed to be renouncing terrorism in '99 at least, given the Lockerbie trial. Apparently he was also willing to do it before, but the US State Department didn't want to explore that further according to Gary Hart.
Hart worked at it for several months, but no matter how open-ended the offers from Tripoli, the State Department was not interested. Hart tells me he has always assumed the administration preferred to have Libya remain “a villain.”
-
Originally posted by Rude
We destroyed Iraq?
I'm still confused to what we are rebuilding in Iraq...
If Iraq didn't have cell phones before the war... why the heck are we putting a cell phone system in now!
If Iraq didn't have Cable Internet... why the heck is ComCast there now?
If Iraq didnt' have McDonalds, AMC Theaters, KFC, Wal-Mart, and Win-Dixies... why are we "re-building" franchise stores?
Something smells like pork!
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
They do have control over who they give tax relief too - don't they!
The Congress does, yes. The President can only make proposals. Congress acts on those, either for or against, and either we get a new tax law or we don't.
In any event, the President cannot simply change the tax code all by himself.
100 Senators and 435 Representatives, from both parties, have that responsibility.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Toad - the straw man I was referring to is the 'you're saying Bush is Hitler' argument that is often dragged out in these type of discussions. How is it relevant? You putting 'Bush and Hitler' together in the search engine spawns so many results precisely because it is used by the pro-war types to refute arguments made by the anti-war types. Ever consider that? Do you not see the moronic 'BOOOSHH, AMREEEKA IS HITLER' crap spawned by Grunherz and Co.?
Rude - Oh my. When have I said Saddam was innocent? Gaddaffi seemed to be renouncing terrorism in '99 at least, given the Lockerbie trial. Apparently he was also willing to do it before, but the US State Department didn't want to explore that further according to Gary Hart.
Hart worked at it for several months, but no matter how open-ended the offers from Tripoli, the State Department was not interested. Hart tells me he has always assumed the administration preferred to have Libya remain “a villain.”
Do you always believe what you read?
-
George Orwell is saying..See I told you so.
-
I'm curious, Gscholz, why you believe a fundamental understanding of the UN and UNSC is beyond my ability to comprehend? I simply don't agree with a world organization that says over and over "Don't!... or else!" for 12 years, and is ignored. I don't see how such an organization was effective in stopping or even limiting the growth of terrorism, or the funding of terrorists by member states. I don't see how you consider Iraq a better place with SH in place (not that it matters).
Look, I'll give you the WMD are apparently not there. I'll accept the Kaye report as honest. If you scan back on my words over the last year, you'll see over and over I would have supported war against Iraq without WMD, and always said so. Reparations? LOL.
You'd better come to grips with something- the UN doesn't work. It hasn't for some time. It didn't stop any terror attacks against the US either foreign or domestic, and it won't in the future, so you know what? In matters of defense it doesn't really matter to me what the UN says. We're all looking out for our own, my country, your country, and no one's hands are clean.
-
You destroyed most of Iraq's modern infrastructure. Waterworks, power plants, communications.
You know, I think the thing that bugs me the most about you is how you single America out as if it is the only country involved in this thing, or the only country that has ever been involved in anything like it. We already know that is not true. We also know SH was not complying with any UN resolutions, so his was an outlaw regime. Yet somehow I have the feeling you believe we should stick him back in power with an apology and a pile of money.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The United States of America proposed a draft resolution authorizing military action, but withdrew it when it became clear that they did not have the support of the majority of the UNSC
thats not true. France was the one threatening veto, nothing to do with a majority.
Basically France and Germany were the minority in the UN regarding backing previous UN resolutions with the threat of force.
-
See? You oviously don't understand. The UN was never meant to "stopping or even limiting the growth of terrorism, or the funding of terrorists by member states". The UN was created to solve conflicts between nations.
Terrorism isn't a conflict between nations? Now you are being obtuse. It occurs when a country is acting out against a political or military foe, and has no other means (you know, like a world court) to address its needs. If the UN was doing what it was originated to do (ie, build relations between countries, support the downtrodden, make friends of enemies) we wouldn't have more and more terrorists, now would we? You're just playing a semantic game.
I was curious why you thought you were superior YET AGAIN, you answered it- you aren't. If you are trying to argue the UN works as it should, you should be listening to its leadership- they don't think it's working all that hot.
But let's not get derailed yet again... yes, it is my opinion the UN is a joke organization we dump billions of dollars into every year. No, I don't trust the UN to have any part of our actions to defend ourselves, or to react to those that threaten us in any way.
But, you can continue on as if you possess a singular knowledge of all things international I suppose...
-
What Weapons of Mass Destruction Evidence Have We Found In Iraq? Excerpts from David Kay's Report
by Dan Masterson
October 4, 2003
If your where to listen to the talking heads on the various mainstream media outlets, or read the commentary and reporting in the mainstream newspaper, it would seem that Saddam had repented of his previous weapons of mass destruction sins and had begun to emulate the life of Mahatma Ghandi.
The following are excerpts from David Kay’s testimony to the House and Senate Committees. They may not have found a “Fat Man” sitting in Saddam’s kitchen (neither Saddam or a nuclear bomb) but they have found some fairly scary things. Read on and decide yourself. Also, at the bottom of the page there are photographs of some of the evidence that has been found or destroyed.
...
Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:
From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;
Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;
The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.
... We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example,
On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the main building contained an archive of documents situated on well-organized rows of metal shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage despite the total destruction of the upper floors from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the exploitation team encountered small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed. Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents.
All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors.
Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch.
...
Following are photographs of some of the goodies that have been found.
(http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/wmd1.jpg)
Vials: A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist's residence.
(http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/wmd2.jpg)
Lab Equipment From Mosque.
(http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/wmd3.jpg)
Burned Documents Found at SAAD Center: An exploitation team on a recent mission to the SAAD Center, part of the Baghdad New Nuclear Design Center, found massive looting and the remnants of deliberately destroyed documents. Other documents were left untouched, however, and recovered by the team
(http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/wmd4.jpg)
Storage room in basement of Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters. Burned frames of PC workstations visible on shelves. All rooms sharing walls with this storage room were untouched from fire or battle damage
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
I'm still confused to what we are rebuilding in Iraq...
If Iraq didn't have cell phones before the war... why the heck are we putting a cell phone system in now!
If Iraq didn't have Cable Internet... why the heck is ComCast there now?
If Iraq didnt' have McDonalds, AMC Theaters, KFC, Wal-Mart, and Win-Dixies... why are we "re-building" franchise stores?
Something smells like pork!
I'm not sure what you are saying. So, we shouldn't help improve Iraq's quality of life and standard of living? A high quality and standard that was denied them for decades by Saddam? We shouldn't be helping to bring the average Iraqi into the 21st century?
-
Dont want to take credit for writing that last post as I did not.
It was info I stumbled across on the net.
But my take on the whole Iraq deal is even without WMDs we were entirely correct in going in.
Its not like this guy was some kind of sweet old man.
Here is a man who brutally executed mass murder of his own people on a scale that hasnt been seen since Stalin and Hitler.
On that basis ALONE I feel we were right for going in.
What if we had taken the same attitude With Hitler that nay sayers would have had us do.
I.. for one am thankful we had leadership then..and now who ignored the naysayers and did what was right for whatever reason.
Hitler we did something about. Stalin we couldnt.. well we could have in 45 but we didnt. End result there 40 year cold war.
Now Im old enough to remember we had two types of drills in school. the standard fire drill that is still practiced to this day and another cute little drill where we all went down into the schools basement and looking up at a cute little yellow and red sign with the words "Fallout shelter" underneath it.
Its no secret and is pretty much indisputable that Saddam would like to have had and was actively perusing a nuclear capability.
Which given the mentality of the region makes him a grave threat even if he did not currently possess one it would only be a matter of time before he did.
Were actually supposed to be stupid enough to wait untill he actually had one before we did anything about it?
That wouldn't be just stupid. That would be INSANE.
So then what were we supposed to do? contain him like we did with North Korea? Given the problems we've been having with North Korea over the last few years. Yes I see how well that worked...NOT
Now lets say he got them and didnt use them.
Take into account that his reign wasnt going to last forever Who takes over after Saddam? His Sons? LOL now there is a comforting thought. But even that wasnt a foregone conclusion considering the amount of attempts made on their lives. If not them who? Keep in mind how Saddam himself came into power.
Someone else far worse could seize control in the same way.
Then also take into account the stability of the region and that this is a region that doesn't care about mutually assured destruction. Doesn't bother them in the least so long as they take us with them. Just ask the terrorists of 911 or the suicide bombers if they are worried about "Mutually assured destruction"
This world has become an increasingly smaller place. Now the entire planet is our backyard and that backyard is full of poisonous snakes. some more poisonous and easier to get at then others. Now I dont know about you but in my backyard Im not willing to wait to see if the snake I see is going to bite anyone first before I cut its head off. Im just going to cut its head off. Sure there may be alot of other snakes in my yard too but that is one less snake I have to worry about.
-
I'll disagree with you Dred.
No one "did anything" about Hitler until he started operating aggressively outside Germany's borders. IE: the invasion of Poland. The reoccupation of the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, Austria.. no world response.
No one "did anything" about Saddam, despite his internal slaughtering until he occupied Kuwait.
A nation's internal affairs are a nation's internal affairs, no matter how brutal those may be or how callous it may sound to ignore it. That's just the way it is.
We went this time on the assumption that Iraq's WMD posed a threat to US national security. That was the justification given. That is a legitimate justification IF indeed they had WMD that were actually a threat to us. I'll give them a little more time, but there still needs to be proof.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That is a fair request GS, one I will vote for when........
what a classic BS of typical Ego maniac
small children at age of 8 years think and speak like that in our country