Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on April 17, 2004, 11:28:04 AM
-
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/112546.shtml
Two members of an al Qaeda cell connected to top terror master Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have been caught in Jordan with chemical weapons and poisonous gas for a planned attack that Jordanian officials say would have killed up to 20,000 people.
"The bomb, had it been detonated, could have affected people in a one kilometer radius and cause the deaths of up to 20,000 people," Jordanian officials told Maariv
According to United Press International, the al Qaeda car was intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border and "carried explosives, a chemical bomb and poisonous gas."
The discovery of the al Qaeda WMD plot is sure to renew speculation that some of Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction were hidden in Syria before the U.S. attacked in March 2003, and have now found their way into al Qaeda's hands.
As of Saturday morning, the White House had not commented on the al Qaeda WMD plot and its possible ties to Iraq.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that Saddam's tons of unaccounted for WMD have not been found because they are well hidded or had been moved into Syria.
The fact remains that Iraq never accounted for and Hans Blix never accounted for or found tons of WMD which were known to have existed.
The fact that these WMD have never been accounted for is
usually dismissed by people who say Iraq "had no WMD" They don't seem to want to learn what became of all those weapons.
This is why I feel the US action in Iraq was justfied. Everyone knew Saddam was not complying with the UN, the UN and everyone else knew Saddam had not accounted for tons of WMD........yet they were letting Saddam dance around and were about ready to declare Iraq in compliance regardless of these facts.
The mear fact that it was possible that Iraq had WMD and was not complying is enough for me. No fooling around and waiting to see after 911 in my opinion. Certainly I wouldn't trust our security to the bumbling Hans Blix as the final word, when even he said Saddam was not cooperating.
So it came down to a war that France and Germany opposed. Big deal.....at least Iraq is in compliance now. Now we need to find out if WMD went to Syria or someplace else.
-
Looks like crow may be on the menu?
-
No, they will say it was all fabricated to save Bush's bid on the White House for November.
Never underestimate the conviction of those who are too strong willed to believe anything but the drivel they spread.
-
Newsmax eh?
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Newsmax eh?
yeah, did you read it?
"The officials told the London-based newspaper al-Hayat "
"According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the al Qaeda terrorists managed to smuggle.... "
"According to United Press International, the al Qaeda car was intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border and "carried explosives, a chemical bomb and poisonous gas."
I guess since I pulled the story off of newsmax, it must not be true , eh?
-
as i have previously stated. first the region, then N. Africa. Wait a second, *storch squints* is that a dread WMD i see in tripoli?
-
If any WMD turn up I have a suspicion it will be in late October and they will likely have the "Made in USA" scratched off.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
If any WMD turn up I have a suspicion it will be in late October and they will likely have the "Made in USA" scratched off.
Do you think it's possible that any of Saddam's unaccounted for WMD are in Syria or have been hidden? How do you rationalise the fact that tons of WMD have not been accounted for and could be anywhere?
I know Saddam was a very honest person and all, but maybe he slipped up while fully cooperating with Hans Blix and forgot to tell him where the tons of WMD were. I'm sure it's an honest oversight by a friendly leader eager to cooperate with the UN.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do you think it's possible that any of Saddam's unaccounted for WMD are in Syria or have been hidden? How do you rationalise the fact that tons of WMD have not been accounted for and could be anywhere?
I know Saddam was blah blah blah...
Is it POSSIBLE? Yes. It is also POSSIBLE they were destroyed in the numerous attacks on Iraqi targets before the war. I know Bush is blah blah blah...
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Is it POSSIBLE? Yes. It is also POSSIBLE they were destroyed in the numerous attacks on Iraqi targets before the war. I know Bush is blah blah blah...
Either could be possible, but I doubt if the "numerous" attacks would have destroyed it all. Yet to be explained, or at least I haven't yet heard an explanation, are the many chem suits and gas masks found in the Iraqi army possession, and the traces of chems detected in the Tigres river during the war. Then there was the proof found of ongoing chem and bio weapons programs. To ignore all this in favor of no WMD would be politically expedient to some but pure lunacy for the world.
grizzly
-
They might not be saddam's weapons. Remember the video tape found in afghanistan showing al-qaeda experimenting with chemicals and testing them on dogs? I am afraid there could be alot more than saddam's chemical weapons out there.
-
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
Jordan's King Abdullah revealed on Saturday that vehicles reportedly containing chemical weapons and poison gas that were part of a deadly al Qaeda bomb plot came from Syria
"It was a major, major operation. It would have decapitated the government," King Abdullah told the San Francisco Chronicle. Jordanian officials estimated that the death count could have been as high as 20,000 - seven times greater than the Sept. 11 attacks.
In his testimony before Congress last year, Mr. Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S.attack on March 19, 2003 attack.
Saddam would never lie to the UN and try to hide his WMD in Syria, so obviously they had to come from somewhere else....no other logical conclusion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Saddam would never lie to the UN and try to hide his WMD in Syria, so obviously they had to come from somewhere else....no other logical conclusion.
See my post above. If you want to come that conclusion for your own purposes, go ahead, you saw the same video tape I saw.
Let's pretend that saddam has half a brain for a second. If you could not be caught with chemical weapons, what would you do with them? Hide them? Ya sure, and let America find them? Think for a second, what would be the smart thing to have done with any chemicals that you cannot be caught with. Especially if some of those chemicals may have been provided from the Americans(and who knows who else) years ago. You can't use them, you can't get caught with them. You sell them. If you are invaded by America, they never find them, they look wrong, and the weapons are in the hands of our enemies. Remember the oodles of cash we found? The last thing saddam would want would to be caught with any kind of chemical weapon for the Americans prove them right. Hide them in syria? That's a nice thought, but I think any chemicals in syria were purchased. And I wouldn't be surprised if alot more of them are buried in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do not underestimate the intelligence of your enemy.
-
Well, I have been careful not to weigh in with many thoughts on Iraq's WMD or blindly assume anything about the war in Iraq.
For me, I base the justification for the US attacking Iraq, alone if needed, on the fact that the UN was telling us that Iraq had wmd and that he was not cooperating.
As long as Saddam was in power, there was no way to ensure he didn't have wmd. Saddam could have cooperated fully and avoided the war but for some reason chose not to.
-
"In his testimony before Congress last year, Mr. Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S.attack on March 19, 2003 attack."
Well, DUH. If I were an Iraqi with a car and the USA announced they were invading I'd drive to Syria too. To imply this increased vehicular traffic proves Iraq had WMD and moved it to Syria just prior to the War is laughable.
:rolleyes:
-
Let me add to that. If he did, in fact, sell chemicals to al-qaeda, think where they could be. Africa? Indonesia? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Syria? Down the street from your house? All of the above?
Needle in a haystack? More like a haystack in a needle. We may find bits and traces, but it could be anywhere and everywhere.
-
Sure, they could be anywhere. But it is pretty much a fact that they hid, sold or moved tons of it and it has never been accounted for.
Israeli intelligence has always maintained that it went to Syria during the pause before the US invaded.....to allow inpsectors more time.
Remember, most of that stuff could be hidden in a few trucks. Although they could have gone anywhere, they would have alomost had to go through Syria to get out of Iraq. Therefore it is most logical to assume they went to Syria if they left Iraq at all.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sure, they could be anywhere. But it is pretty much a fact that they hid, sold or moved tons of it and it has never been accounted for.
Israeli intelligence has always maintained that it went to Syria during the pause before the US invaded.....to allow inpsectors more time.
Remember, most of that stuff could be hidden in a few trucks. Although they could have gone anywhere, they would have alomost had to go through Syria to get out of Iraq. Therefore it is most logical to assume they went to Syria if they left Iraq at all.
I heard they hired DHL and transported those WMD's to the France which launched them to the mars with Ariane rocket.
So they really did exist but it's impossible to find them anymore.
They also included a parcel bill saying WMDs came from US so now you may expect Martian retaliation strike.
Hell Americans should do a pre-emptive strike to Mars and blow that planet to the next galaxy :)
I'm sure Hortlund would be happy to help with that :rofl
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sure, they could be anywhere. But it is pretty much a fact that they hid, sold or moved tons of it and it has never been accounted for.
Israeli intelligence has always maintained that it went to Syria during the pause before the US invaded.....to allow inpsectors more time.
Remember, most of that stuff could be hidden in a few trucks. Although they could have gone anywhere, they would have alomost had to go through Syria to get out of Iraq. Therefore it is most logical to assume they went to Syria if they left Iraq at all.
I'm sure Israeli intel is going to say Iraq has WMD or sold, sent, gave it to another Arab state. They would LOVE somebody to waltz in and kick some Arab arse.
Nuke, ya need to get your story straight. Bush said Saddam had an arsenal of WMD...not a few truckloads. If we went in over just a few truckloads Bush is a bigger idiot than I gave him credit for.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I'm sure Israeli intel is going to say Iraq has WMD or sold, sent, gave it to another Arab state. They would LOVE somebody to waltz in and kick some Arab arse.
Nuke, ya need to get your story straight. Bush said Saddam had an arsenal of WMD...not a few truckloads. If we went in over just a few truckloads Bush is a bigger idiot than I gave him credit for.
How much Sarin do you think it would take to kill say 100,000 people in LA or NYC? I think it would much less than even one "truck load".
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How much Sarin do you think it would take to kill say 100,000 people in LA or NYC? I think it would much less than even one "truck load".
How many cruise missles does it take to destroy a truck? I'd say less than it takes for an invasion.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
How many cruise missles does it take to destroy a truck? I'd say less than it takes for an invasion.
how many cruise missles could locate, ID and track a truck with WMD? How many trucks did Iraq have?
-
Well Nuke, I guess we are no safer than we were before. 686 dead American soldiers later...GREAT JOB DUBYA!
-
Hey. Here's a novell thought.
Maybe Syria has chemical and poisonous gas weapons and some have gone "missing?"
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Well Nuke, I guess we are no safer than we were before. 686 dead American soldiers later...GREAT JOB DUBYA!
It was not just "DUBYA" .... It was Kerry, Clinton, The UN, France, Germany and many more who agreed that Iraq was a threat with WMD. Only thing is, nobody would do anything about the threat. Sure, they talked the talk, but Bush walked walk and did something about it.
-
Yep, Bush marched in and found truckloads of... errr.... what WMD did he found ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Yep, Bush marched in and found truckloads of... errr.... what WMD did he found ?
So are you saying that the UN, France and Germany lied about Iraq having WMD?
-
This really seems like such an old, tired debate.
There were WMD! See???
There were no WMD! See???
Either way, the only truly important question IMO seems to be "what are we going to do now"?
I for one believe in the war on terror. I even believe in the Saddam connection. Look at what's being flushed out over there right now...
-
Originally posted by VOR
This really seems like such an old, tired debate.
There were WMD! See???
There were no WMD! See???
Either way, the only truly important question IMO seems to be "what are we going to do now"?
I for one believe in the war on terror. I even believe in the Saddam connection. Look at what's being flushed out over there right now...
Well, the only thing that mattered at the time was that everyone agreed Iraq had WMD which were unaccounted for and that nobody was doing anything to make sure Iraq complied with the UN.
-
Well, the only thing that mattered at the time was that everyone agreed Iraq had WMD which were unaccounted for and that nobody was doing anything to make sure Iraq complied with the UN.
I'm with you 100% on that one Nuke. I also believe there were some WMD present prior to the invasion. I personally saw several palletes of Al-Samoud missiles sitting along the highway just south of Baghdah, so there's no doubt in my mind Saddam was not complying with the UN.
I think it's time to shift our focus on the "here and now" issues, however.
Until the question is answered definitively this debate can go on and on like a hamster in a wheel.
-
Originally posted by VOR
I'm with you 100% on that one Nuke. I also believe there were some WMD present prior to the invasion. I personally saw several palletes of Al-Samoud missiles sitting along the highway just south of Baghdah, so there's no doubt in my mind Saddam was not complying with the UN.
I think it's time to shift our focus on the "here and now" issues, however.
Until the question is answered definitively this debate can go on and on like a hamster in a wheel.
I agree with you, we need to focus on the present.
for your service to our country
-
The Pentagon, it was learned today, is certain that Iraq has WMD...they kept the receipts.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
The Pentagon, it was learned today, is certain that Iraq has WMD...they kept the receipts.
LMFAO
Finally all is explained! :rofl
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"In his testimony before Congress last year, Mr. Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S.attack on March 19, 2003 attack."
Well, DUH. If I were an Iraqi with a car and the USA announced they were invading I'd drive to Syria too. To imply this increased vehicular traffic proves Iraq had WMD and moved it to Syria just prior to the War is laughable.
:rolleyes:
Too say that the vehicles were not carrying WMD's is laughable too. Ya know you libs sound like a broken record.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Too say that the vehicles were not carrying WMD's is laughable too. Ya know you libs sound like a broken record.
Could someone please explain how questioning the WMD issue instantly labels you as a liberal? That's a rather narrow minded focus imho.
...-Gixer
-
Let, me get this straight, we aren't supposed to believe what SH says, but we are supposed to believe what Al-Quaeda say?
Vor, were those that same Al-Samoud missles that Iraq had started destoying under UNMOVIC observation shortly before the Iraq was invaded?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
The Pentagon, it was learned today, is certain that Iraq has WMD...they kept the receipts.
Intel you can trust....:rofl
-
Vor, were those that same Al-Samoud missles that Iraq had started destoying under UNMOVIC observation shortly before the Iraq was invaded?
Loaded question. Short answer: No. These particular ones seemed intact to me. So did the Scuds and Al-Samoud missiles fired into Kuwait during the first few days of the war. At any rate, wouldn't destroying them just prior to invasion have put them about 10+ years behind schedule?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Could someone please explain how questioning the WMD issue instantly labels you as a liberal? That's a rather narrow minded focus imho.
...-Gixer
Gixer, basically being labeled a "liberal" is an insult used by those too dense to see the varying shades of grey in what they believe to be a black and white world.
Get used to Bodhi's namecalling- it's all he can offer to a thread.
-
Interesting info GSholz. Thanks. I assume they were identified from debris?
When I found out the Al-Samoud was banned I *assumed* it had been banned since the beginning. Looks like I'll have to concede this point.
And in all fairness, I never saw one of the things in flight. We just called everything a "scud".
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Gixer, basically being labeled a "liberal" is an insult used by those too dense to see the varying shades of grey in what they believe to be a black and white world.
Get used to Bodhi's namecalling- it's all he can offer to a thread.
It's funny how liberals don't like to be called liberals... it's like they're ashamed of it.
grizzly
-
Originally posted by NUKE
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/112546.shtml
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that Saddam's tons of unaccounted for WMD have not been found because they are well hidded or had been moved into Syria.
The fact remains that Iraq never accounted for and Hans Blix never accounted for or found tons of WMD which were known to have existed.
The fact that these WMD have never been accounted for is
usually dismissed by people who say Iraq "had no WMD" They don't seem to want to learn what became of all those weapons.
This is why I feel the US action in Iraq was justfied. Everyone knew Saddam was not complying with the UN, the UN and everyone else knew Saddam had not accounted for tons of WMD........yet they were letting Saddam dance around and were about ready to declare Iraq in compliance regardless of these facts.
The mear fact that it was possible that Iraq had WMD and was not complying is enough for me. No fooling around and waiting to see after 911 in my opinion. Certainly I wouldn't trust our security to the bumbling Hans Blix as the final word, when even he said Saddam was not cooperating.
So it came down to a war that France and Germany opposed. Big deal.....at least Iraq is in compliance now. Now we need to find out if WMD went to Syria or someplace else.
lol
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
lol
what a great rebuttal!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
what a great rebuttal!
I do not need to rebuttal. The first post of this thread was so insane there is no arguement. Find a better source.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
I do not need to rebuttal. The first post of this thread was so insane there is no arguement. Find a better source.
find a better source for what? You think the three sources are wrong and the story not true?
Come on Pongo, really.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
find a better source for what? You think the three sources are wrong and the story not true?
Come on Pongo, really.
I think idotic writers that feed off of gulible right wing scare jobs like yourself make alot of money for writing garbage.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
I think idotic writers that feed off of gulible right wing scare jobs like yourself make alot of money for writing garbage.
so basically you will not aknowledge the news report as being true, even though at least 4 sources where quoted.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm
It is an open secret that the Iraqi WMDs are in Syria.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Gixer, basically being labeled a "liberal" is an insult used by those too dense to see the varying shades of grey in what they believe to be a black and white world.
Get used to Bodhi's namecalling- it's all he can offer to a thread.
Once again Airhead hits the bullseye.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
While it is an interesting theory, I wonder what Syria would want with Iraqi chemical weapons considering they have plenty themselves?
Weapons are like tools.
You can never have too many of them.
And why not? We had/have more then enough Nukes to blow up the world several times over.
That never stopped us from making more.
-
What the heck is the shelf life on chemical and biological weapons?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Still, why would Iraq take the risk of sending its WMD to Syria rather than just bury it? Syria has chemical factories producing WMD and a Scud manufacturing plant. They have all the chemical weapons they want and the delivery systems. So does Iran. I fail to see why Iraq would risk transporting WMD to Syria.
Because it is easier to look for Iraqi WMDs in Iraq than in Syria... They would be safer where they are now.
-
*shrug*
1. There is plenty of evidence that puts the WMDs in Syria, none that you or anyone else of the anti-war lobby would accept as evidence though, nor would it hold water in a court of law
which brings us to
2. the impotence of the law to combat terrorism
-
1.
Sattelite images of trucks going from known/suspected Iraqi WMD sites in early March and moving to an exact, known, spot in northeastern Syria. A spot that is now "guarded by" (as in grouped in the area) several Syrian army formations.
Testimony by Iraqi soldiers/"scientists" who took part in the operation.
Testimony by other Iraqi soldiers/"scientists" who all claim to have worked with WMDs.
2.
Impotent as in the law canot be used to fight terrorism. Criminal law is more focused on acting after a crime has taken place. It is designed to discover the crime, and then find evidence to tie the bad guy to the crime.
It is very bad when it comes to crime-prevention. And it is *completely* impotent when it comes to battling the kind of terrorism Al Quaeda stands for.
I dunno if you want me to explain more in detail why it is so, but basically that is what I was referring to.
-
Ahhh the burden of proof. Nuke your website is just full of editorials. Come back with something besides the rantings of a scared little man writing off the top of his head.
In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media. I know you guys think the media is a liberal mouthpiece, but they are in the business of making money and a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.
I do not post NYtimes or washington post editorials as facts nuke.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Ahhh the burden of proof. Nuke your website is just full of editorials. Come back with something besides the rantings of a scared little man writing off the top of his head.
Did you miss my link to BBC? Or did you ignore that one because you cant just dismiss the source?
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.
No one in the US or UK administration would say that in public.
Like I said, everyone knows where the Iraqi WMDs are, its just that it would be political suicide to say it. Right now the public is not ready for a war against Syria. Which leaves three options.
1) Ignore the problem for now, see how Iraq/Afghanistan/the war on terror develops, and depending on that, raise the Syrian question in a year or two.
2) Covert operations against the WMD locations in Syria.
3) Have Israel do it.
1) Seems to be the option the US/UK are going with right now. Its ok really, they know where the WMDs are, they have the area under 24 hour surviellance. How for example do you think the Jordanian plot was stopped?
2) Is too risky, basically this is what the Syrians are expecting, hence the army presence in the area. Any operation in the area is bound to cause some casualties, and the media image of an "unprovoked" US attack on peaceful Syria is bound to cause several heads to explode among the pacifists and the arabs. Anyway, it wont really lead to any good PR even if successful "yeah, we destroyed the Iraqi WMDs in Syria" followed by a gigantic "yeah, right" by the collective pacifists in the western hemisphere.
3) Is possibly what is going on too. Might be the reason why the US/UK are letting the Israelis do their thing with the Palestinians right now. Israel could be saying "ok, we will take out the nuclear reactor in Iran, and the Syrian WMDs and take the blame for it, if you let us do our thing in Gaza and the West Bank first to enhance our security situation".
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Ahhh the burden of proof. Nuke your website is just full of editorials. Come back with something besides the rantings of a scared little man writing off the top of his head.
In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media. I know you guys think the media is a liberal mouthpiece, but they are in the business of making money and a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.
I do not post NYtimes or washington post editorials as facts nuke.
First of all Pongo, the article I posted from newsmax says almost exactly what the BBC article says. You see, newsmax was just reporting from the news services just like the BBC had done.
Second, who said anything about proof of anything? I posted an article about the terorist plot....a VERY significant event which was stopped.
The article I posted simply said that now people will be wondering/questioning weather or not any of Saddams weapons made it into Syria, which seems logical to me. I wonder if Saddams wmd went to Syria too, does that make me "crazy" or something?
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media. I know you guys think the media is a liberal mouthpiece, but they are in the business of making money and a story on Syria having wmd's would surely make the nightly news.
I do not post NYtimes or washington post editorials as facts nuke.
you mean the NY Times and Washington post are not mainstream media?
LOL and since when has the mainstream media given a damn about the truth?
They take snippets of the truth and yank,spin,twist and turn it around to make it sound more interesting depending on the point they are trying to make.
But the end product rarely resembles anything like the truth they started with.:lol
-
Originally posted by Grizzly
It's funny how liberals don't like to be called liberals... it's like they're ashamed of it.
grizzly
LOL It's not what you say, it's more how you say it. As long as your defination of a "liberal" is a person who hates America and wants to see her defeated and put into her place then being called a "liberal"is offensive, not embarassing. It would be like if I called you a fascist- its only purpose is to deteroriate a discussion into a name calling flamefest.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media.
I am aware of all these reports because I heard about them in the mainstream news. I suppose there isn't much more they can say about it until something more develops.
grizzly
-
(http://store5.yimg.com/I/kkapers2_1788_7715454)
Clutch away. ;)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
As long as your defination of a "liberal" is a person who hates America and wants to see her defeated and put into her place then being called a "liberal"is offensive.
Well, I can see how one might be offended if that was the definition of a liberal.
grizzly
-
Yes, of course being a liberal is equated with hating America. afterall what has been demonstrated by liberals for the last century an a half?
-
Originally posted by storch
Yes, of course being a liberal is equated with hating America. afterall what has been demonstrated by liberals for the last century an a half?
raising taxes and gutting the military?
-
The tip of the iceburg nuke, those are the hor d'ouerves. I was hoping for an anti, er liberal responder.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
raising taxes and gutting the military?
I was under the impression that the military in the US was a sacred cow. No one will touch military funding because if they do, *bam* unelectable.
Wasn't even Gore going to increase military spending?
-
Post-Cold War Defense Spending Cuts: A Bipartisan Decision
Steven Kosiak & Elizabeth Heeter
Published 08/31/2000
Highlight
The question of who is responsible for the substantial reductions in defense spending that occurred in the 1990s has arisen as an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign. A strong case can be made that these cuts were an appropriate response to the end of the Cold War and efforts to bring the federal deficit under control. But, more importantly, whatever the merits of the defense drawdown of the 1990s, one thing is clear: the decision to cut the defense budget, and to do so relatively deeply, was very much a bipartisan decision. Among other things, CSBA finds that:
- The post-Cold War decline in defense spending began during the Bush Administration.
- There is almost no difference between the level of funding proposed for defense by President Bush in his last fiscal year (FY) 1994-99 budget plan and the level of funding actually provided for defense over this six-year period under the Clinton Administration. Both Bush planned funding and actual funding amounted to $1.72 trillion (in FY 2001 dollars).
- Congressional add-ons since 1995, when the Republican Party gained control of both houses, account for only about 3 percent of the defense topline of the past six years.
- Not only was the drawdown of the 1990s clearly a bipartisan affair, the best available evidence suggests that Democrats and Republicans are still remarkably close in terms of their support for defense spending. Under the latest Clinton Administration plan, funding for defense is projected to remain essentially flat in real (inflation-adjusted) terms through fiscal year (FY) 2005. The latest Congressional Budget Resolution (CBR) would provide only about one-third of 1 percent more over this period. In reality, the effectiveness with which the Department of Defense (DoD) is able to address US security challenges in the future is likely to depend much more on how wisely DoD spends than how much it spends.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
-
Originally posted by storch
Yes, of course being a liberal is equated with hating America. afterall what has been demonstrated by liberals for the last century an a half?
Let's start with labor. Liberals are responsible for abolishing child labor, sweatshops, maintaining safe working conditions, establishing a 40 hour work week, minimum wages, right to organize...
How bout civil rights? Liberals are responsible for desegrating our schools, getting African Americans the right to vote, ending discrimination in housing sales, getting women the right to vote (sorry Lazs), ending discrimination in everything from where you sat on a bus to what water fountain you used...
In addition it's the Liberals who got the US out of the Viet Nam fiasco and it's the Liberals who urged avoidance of getting into another Viet Nam in Iraq.
I could go on and on but I'm AFK for the day and I'm running late. My point is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being a liberal; indeed, many liberal accomplishments are something to be proud of.
I'll be back this evening and maybe I'll get an answer to THIS question- Just what have the Conservatives done for us?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Let's start with labor. Liberals are responsible for abolishing child labor, sweatshops, maintaining safe working conditions, establishing a 40 hour work week, minimum wages, right to organize...
How bout civil rights? Liberals are responsible for desegrating our schools, getting African Americans the right to vote, ending discrimination in housing sales, getting women the right to vote (sorry Lazs), ending discrimination in everything from where you sat on a bus to what water fountain you used...
In addition it's the Liberals who got the US out of the Viet Nam fiasco and it's the Liberals who urged avoidance of getting into another Viet Nam in Iraq.
I could go on and on but I'm AFK for the day and I'm running late. My point is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being a liberal; indeed, many liberal accomplishments are something to be proud of.
I'll be back this evening and maybe I'll get an answer to THIS question- Just what have the Conservatives done for us?
Dont forget FDR.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
LOL It's not what you say, it's more how you say it. As long as your defination of a "liberal" is a person who hates America and wants to see her defeated and put into her place then being called a "liberal"is offensive, not embarassing. It would be like if I called you a fascist- its only purpose is to deteroriate a discussion into a name calling flamefest.
I must admit, it's difficult to say that word without feeling at least a bit of revulsion. But hey, I'm a tolerant guy, I can say Communist too.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I could go on and on but I'm AFK for the day and I'm running late. My point is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being a liberal; indeed, many liberal accomplishments are something to be proud of.
Don't confuse liberals with democrats, nor with the common definition of a liberal. The american political liberal believes that he has all of the true answers. History, reality, and constitutional limitations are minor inconveniences to the liberal agenda. These can be simply altered, spun, or reinterpreted to suit the objective. Those who do not wish to follow the liberal doctrine are denigrated as some sort of anti-social, barbaric or phobic enemy of all that is good for mankind. A liberal believes people cannot be trusted to decide their own fate, thus must become cookie cutter drones stripped of all individuality and self sufficiency. The liberal ends justify any means necessary. Most liberals are democrats because socialism more easily fits their philosophy, but a liberal can be a republican also.
grizzly
-
Free rose colored glasses, come get your free rose colored glasses. Johnson should have been tried as a traitor for his policies in vietnam, FDR mortgaged us to this very day and handed over all of eastern europe to his pal uncle joe. we are still paying dearly for the nutcase social experimentation that was the 60's. the decline of the family therefore the moral foundation of the nation is being brought about by nutcase liberal ideas, abortion now homosexual marriages. liberals will not stop until they totally destroy our culture then some outsider can come and shoot us. and the band plays on. Airhead is an apt description at least you appear honest in some assesments.