Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: tikky on September 09, 2006, 09:27:27 PM
-
nothing new about this...
Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: Ark. Senator Says Iraq Would Be Better Off With Saddam In Power
Sept. 9, 2006
(CBS) When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.
Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks.
"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.
But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.
"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"
Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.
He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'"...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml
-
1: I don't see evidence that the Iraqi nation (it's people, to be precise) are truly better off because of the U.S. invasion as of today. There was somewhat of a circumstantial case for such directly after the "mission accomplished" photo op shoot on the carrier deck but things have backslid a lot since then.
2: I know *this* nation was better off before the invasion than now.
*ShruG*
That being said ... we're kinda stuck dealing with this administration's mistakes, aren't we? It'd be nice to have a "way back machine" but unfortunately we don't. :D
-
mr nice big nuke, let him have it!!!1
BTW, i would like to take this opportunity to suggest Castle Bravo for your next handle
-
Yeah, the Iraqi people were a lot better off under Saddam: here's the proof.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm)
(http://
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/[/url])
(http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php)
(http://slides.sitewelder.com/users/TimothyFadek793/images/TimothyFadek79325478.jpg)
-
proof from CNN lmfao thats a freaking joke. suddam is a freaking Sh** head who needs needs to be hung and stoned. i cant bealive people think iraq would be better off. thats like saying stallin was a peaceful man. but what can i say its arkansas.
-
By the way...Pat Roberts is not a senator from Arkansas. He's from Kansas.
-
Perhaps someone might ask the people from Iraq? There are 4 provinces of 17 with big-time violence (Baghdad among them, obviously) All press accounts center on those 4. You can damn sure bet the Kurds are happier now
-
I did not see "Iraq WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER" anywhere in that article.
This is getting all too typical these days.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Perhaps someone might ask the people from Iraq? There are 4 provinces of 17 with big-time violence (Baghdad among them, obviously) All press accounts center on those 4. You can damn sure bet the Kurds are happier now
Did you know that a majority of the population lives in those 4 provinces? :)
-
Originally posted by tikky
nothing new about this...
Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: Ark. Senator Says Iraq Would Be Better Off With Saddam In Power
Sept. 9, 2006
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml
Interesting exchange from 2005 with Senator Rockefeller:
November 13, 2005
Not Ready for Prime Time
Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, that is. He tried to parrot the Dems' party line on Iraq intelligence in an interview with Chris Wallace this morning. His inability to answer the most basic questions is embarrassing:
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.
WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: The Silberman Commission was absolutely prohibited by the President in his charge to them – he appointed them – from ever looking at the use of intelligence, whether it was misused, whether it was massaged to influence the American people to go along with a decision which he had long ago already decided to make.
WALLACE: But didn't they come to that conclusion which I just stated, that the Presidential Daily Brief was in fact more alarmist and less nuanced than the intelligence you saw?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I don't know, because I never get to see, nor does Pat, the Presidential Daily Brief. All I know is that we don't get the intelligence that they do. We are called the Senate Intelligence Committee. We get a lot more than the rest of the Senate, but it was incomplete as to what the President gets, and it was obviously entirely wrong, which raises the question, why was it wrong?
...
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years and he could have it earlier."
WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.
WALLACE: Okay, but you had read that, and now we've read a declassified…
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: But Chris, let's a...
WALLACE: Can I just ask my question sir, and then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was an agreement – a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing a nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the President did.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Because that – first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the Administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin. We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote. But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.
WALLACE: But a lot of people – that's not the point of the investigation, Senator.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
WALLACE: You're not?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.
WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.
A pathetic performance by Rockefeller, but the fact is that the Dems' theory makes no sense, and can't withstand scrutiny by any well-informed observer.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012249.php
-
After the destruction caused by the invasion, the current insurgency, the coming full-scale civil war, and the inevitable rise of a Tehran-controlled mullahocracy, I think history will indeed record that Iraq would have been better off had Saddam remained in control.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Did you know that a majority of the population lives in those 4 provinces? :)
CC, kinda indicated that with baghdad--that being said, why doesnt anyone ask THEM?
-
Iraqis are not a unified people. The three major groups, Kurds/*****es/Sunnies all hate each other. Saddam was a monster, but he kept the different groups from fighting each other.
Now that the monster is gone, every fanatic with a gun is out to foward his cause, and kill those who don't support it.
-
ok with saddam that country looked like a POS but when we finnaly get things going i think that country will thank us for what he have done. saddams a stupid Ahole who killed thousands of people. im srry but that guy needs to go. i acually cant bealive what im hearing from you people. youd think now that we have captured him people would be thanking bush. but the stupid liberals half to be duche bags about it. and i swear to god if they let saddam go il will go crazy. . so will a lot more people.
-
boooooosh should have reviewed Britain's history in Iraq before invading...
Iraqi invasion created more terrorist than actually eliminating!
-
why do europeans care what goes on in American politics?
-
Originally posted by storch
why do europeans care what goes on in American politics?
They have to find something to look up to given their utterly pathetic history.
-
Iraq is an artificial construction. After WW1 ist was cut off from the Osman Empire, mixing 3 different groups in a new nations without asking these people if they want to live together:
A kurd minority,
a sunnite minority
and a shi.ite majority.
Iraq was then a kind of british colony who build an infrstructure with the collaborating sunnite minorite. From these days the sunnites suppressed the other groups.
After WW2 the british went away and the sunnites built a monarchy - still supressing shi.ites and kurds.
This continued until Saddam.
So if Saddam would be in power, then the sunnites would be happy, because they would be the rulers of Iraq, they would have the officers in army, police and in the cities.
The other groups would not agree that if Saddam is in power Iraq would be a better place.
After the US-forces wiped out Saddam and his buerocratic infrastructure they allowed elections. And now the majority - the shi.ites - got into power. They are now the important part in the army and the police.
Under the rule of Saddam the sunnite dominated police and army tortured and killes shi.ites and kurds. Today the shi.ites took revenge and use these forces to kill sunnites.
On the other hand the sunnite terrorists - like Al Kaida - make day by day attacks against shi.ite civilians, policemen, army recruiting stations and mosques. All these suicide bombers who butcher the civilians are sunnites - I cant remember that the shi.ite iraqis are using this terror-tactic.
According to statitists of a german analysis every month in this year at least 1500 iraqi civilians dies in these fightings, which I call a civil war.
Maybe the best solution would be to destroy that thing called Iraq and build 3 new countries:
1. A northern nation for the kurds
2. A southeast neation for the shi.ites
3. Rest for the sunnites.
But this will not happen.
-> 1. Neither Turkey, nor Iran or Syria would accept an independant kurdistan, because of their own kurd minorities.
-> 2. I doubt that the USA would like to see a second Islamic Republic with the oil ressources cooperating with Iran and under the rule of an iranian Grand Ajatollah.
-> 3. The arabs would not accept that their sunnite friends would be put into the rest of former Iraq without any oil ressources.
So this situation will go on - its a bloody civil war IMHO.
But to say "With Saddam everything would be better" is definitivly worng.
-
Originally posted by tikky
Iraqi invasion created more terrorist than actually eliminating!
Horse biscuits. Iraq is the world`s largest mouse trap. It`s working like a charm.
-
Originally posted by storch
why do europeans care what goes on in American politics?
Well you know.. One never stops caring for the kids.
Yurup is were alot of you came from before you moved over-seas to meet new people and set up camp. The parents always keeps track of what the offspring does even if they have reached puberty. ;)
-
Originally posted by storch
why do europeans care what goes on in American politics?
I doubt anyone really care about,
but you maybe meant American foreign politics?, now thats another story.
-
Originally posted by storch
why do Americans care what goes on in Iraqi politics?
There, fixed.
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Because they have to live with the consequences of our pathetic policies.
There, fixed your troll for you too!
Originally posted by Jackal1
Horse biscuits. Iraq is the world`s largest mouse trap. It`s working like a charm.
You'd better tell your own State Department then, because according to their figures, Iraq only accounted for 31% of the total terrorist attacks worldwide last year.(Source) (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65489.pdf)
-
Originally posted by storch
why do europeans care what goes on in American politics?
because you fat tulips affect EVERYTHING that happens in this ****ed up world... for the worse...
-
pathetic truth is 20 centuries of european stupidity are at the root cause of all the worlds troubles today.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
pathetic truth is 20 centuries of european stupidity are at the root cause of all the worlds troubles today.
Yup WE can all blame the people in OUR past, but that does not mean WE should continue with the stupidity.
Were did your family come from way back before America Yeager?
-
you mean from what country did my ancestors escape political tyranny and religious prosecution?
Also, we are in a terrible web of human history that is like a terminal cancer. There is no escaping our shared destiny but rather than take a stand, pick a side to fight for and win with, europeans consistently choose to bury their ollective heads in the sand profusing for someone else to always take care of the ugly dirty work of human relations.
-
Stand and fight we do consider
Reminded of an inner pact between us
That's seen as we go
And ride there
In motion
To fields in debts of honor
Defending
Stand the marchers soaring talons,
Peaceful lives will not deliver freedom,
Fighting we know,
Destroy oppression
The point to reaction
As leaders look to you
Attacking
Choose and renounce throwing chains to the floor.
Kill or be killing faster sins correct the flow.
Casting giant shadows off vast penetrating force
To alter via the war that seen
As friction spans the spirits wrath ascending (slowly) to redeem.
Wars that shout in screams of anguish,
Power spent passion bespoils our soul receiver,
Surely we know.
In glory
We rise to offer,
Create our freedom,
A word we utter,
A word.
Words cause our banner, victorious our day.
Will silence be promised as violence display?
The curse increased we fight the power
And live by it by day.
Our gods awake in thunderous roars,
And guide the leaders' hand in paths of glory to the cause.
Listen, should we fight forever
Knowing as we do know fear destroys?
Listen, should we leave our children?
Listen, our lives stare in silence;
Help us now.
Listen, your friends have been broken,
They tell us of your poison; now we know.
Kill them, give them as they give us.
Slay them, burn their childrens' laughter
On to hell.
The fist will run, grasp metal to gun.
The spirit sings in crashing tones,
We gain the battle drum.
Our cries will shrill, the air will moan and crash into the dawn.
The pen won't stay the demon's wings,
The hour approaches pounding out the Devil's sermon.
Soon, oh soon the light,
Pass within and soothe this endless night
And wait here for you,
Our reason to be here.
Soon, oh soon the time,
All we move to gain will reach and calm;
Our heart is open,
Our reason to be here.
Long ago, set into rhyme.
Soon, oh soon the light,
Ours to shape for all time,
Ours the right;
The sun will lead us,
Our reason to be here.
Soon, oh soon the light,
Ours to shape for all time,
Ours the right;
The sun will lead us,
Our reason to be here.
-
If you choose the quick and easy path, you will become an agent of evil.
-
If you choose the evil path, you will become an agent of the quick and easy.
Battleships confide in me and tell me where you are :D
-
Originally posted by storch
why do europeans care what goes on in American politics?
Because it affects what the most powerful nation on earth does in the world?
-
I have a cousin who used to reside in belgium. she and her belgique husband emigrated to the United States of America last month. They spent one month staying at my folks house as my parents were wasting good American dollars and part of my inheritance galavanting in the Baltic (they will be in helsinki next week). I spent quite a bit of time with them and we discussed many topics. I asked this question "why are Americans despised on the continent?" the answer that I recieved was that europeans tend to be a little envious of us. they envy our boldness and the envy our economy.
what do you little green euros say about that? are you really a little envious or was he telling me something just to be polite?
-
Originally posted by storch
I have a cousin who used to reside in belgium. she and her belgique husband emigrated to the United States of America last month. They spent one month staying at my folks house as my parents were wasting good American dollars and part of my inheritance galavanting in the Baltic (they will be in helsinki next week). I spent quite a bit of time with them and we discussed many topics. I asked this question "why are Americans despised on the continent?" the answer that I recieved was that europeans tend to be a little envious of us. they envy our boldness and the envy our economy.
what do you little green euros say about that? are you really a little envious or was he telling me something just to be polite?
No envy here thats for sure. He may have been polite, or he may have felt that way. European folks are just as different as Americans. Europe is really not one contry but many countries.
-
well you certainly all look the same to me. :D besides what does european union mean then? common currency, common heritage e pluribus unum 230 years too late, n'est pas?
-
He's absoluttely right...I think the world would be a safer place too if GWB hadn't bought into Dick Cheney's pre-emptive invasion doctorine.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I did not see "Iraq WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER" anywhere in that article.
This is getting all too typical these days.
I thought it was in the title of the article itself but if you exclude that it was here:
Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.
-
so what some of you are saying is that the iraqi people are hopless..
That they are ignorant, murdering religious nutjob whackos that can never be helped and are better off with an iron fisted tyrant who only murders a hundred thousand of em every year or so?
That giving these people the chance to run their own destiny is not a viable solution... that only a tyrant can beat the primitive fundamentalists into line with a reign of terror and....
That is all they deserve?
I am having a hard time seeing the compassionate socialist in this view.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
He's absoluttely right...I think the world would be a safer place too if GWB hadn't bought into Dick Cheney's pre-emptive invasion doctorine.
there is no way you could honestly believe that, given sadaam hussein's proven record of atrocities and genocide. it's one thing to be a bush basher but to make that statement demonstrates either a blind faith lockstep belief with the moronic left, intellectual dishonesty, or both.
-
Originally posted by tikky
nothing new about this...
Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: Ark. Senator Says Iraq Would Be Better Off With Saddam In Power
Sept. 9, 2006
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml
The Kurds would not agree.
-
$300B to help the Kurds. Awesome.
-
Every nation deserves the government it harbors, whether a benevolent democracy or a ruthless dictatorship. If they hated Saddam so much, they should have gotten rid of him themselves, or at the very least carried the bulk of the burden for doing so.
If and only if Saddam became a viable threat to the US, should we have gone in there and flattened him. And instead of staying around to turn Iraq into the America-loving, Walmart shopping, McDonald's-eating paradise that it will never be, we should have treated Iraq as an enemy, not an confused, mis-led ally-to be.
That 300 billion would have been better off in the hands of R and D departments of 100 high-tech firms so that in another decade, we can finally end our dependance on the Arab world and let them shrivel back into the sands from which they arose.
And our service men and women, who are all too often used as the rallying cry for thoughtless, largely useless military operations, are better off alive and at home.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so what some of you are saying is that the iraqi people are hopless..
That they are ignorant, murdering religious nutjob whackos that can never be helped and are better off with an iron fisted tyrant who only murders a hundred thousand of em every year or so?
That giving these people the chance to run their own destiny is not a viable solution... that only a tyrant can beat the primitive fundamentalists into line with a reign of terror and....
That is all they deserve?
I am having a hard time seeing the compassionate socialist in this view.
lazs
Uh, were not saying that. We're watching it happen everyday on tv.
Say a country were to come in and remove the U.S. Government, and its military infrastructure. Don't you think the whites/blacks/mexicans, or rich/middle-class/poor would be fighting each other? We have enough cults and militias in this country that anyone who wanted to fight could join one.
-
Iraq didn't even exist as a country until us Brits created it out of 3 handy chunks left over from the Ottoman empire after WW1. I think we may have even used gas here and there to encourage the Kurds/Sunni/*****es to live in harmony.
On the bright side, we sorted out the Eng/Scot/Irish/Welsh thing after a few centuries so it does work if you try hard enough.
-
the dems are just speaking to their base ..
you know the ones that don't give a rats arse about anything or anyone except themsleves & their next unemployment check ..
won't be surprised if they state next that social security/unemployment checks could have gone up 30% if bush did not attack Iraq for his oil buddies .. LOL
-
Yah, it's not a natural country to be sure, but internal polls in Iraq show 70%+ do NOT want the country split up into sections--would LOVE to see an internal poll about whether or not it was a good idea to out Saddam---ya gotta figure the 16% Sunni slice of the pie was good to go with the status quo...not likley the rest...mebbe I'm wrong
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
$300B to help the Kurds. Awesome.
Actually it is. Better them than the Katrina refuse-gee's.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I thought it was in the title of the article itself but if you exclude that it was here:
Actually... putting quotes around something makes it "a quote". You may also notice that the portion you quoted was not in quotes in the article. That means he didn't say that either. What it means is the author of the article put two things together to get that and then presented as a single coherant thought... of which you seem to be fully accepting.
The title of the thread is wrong. The person being quoted did not say that. The need to modify an exerpt from the article and surround it with quotes pretty much implies that the thread starter needed a little more fuel than the article had in it. Nothing like making alot out of very little.
Q: Should we have gone into Iraq?
A: No
Look at that Q&A and tell me how it could mean anything other than what you "quoted".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so what some of you are saying is that the iraqi people are hopless..
That they are ignorant, murdering religious nutjob whackos that can never be helped and are better off with an iron fisted tyrant who only murders a hundred thousand of em every year or so?
I am beginning to think, maybe, yes. If one helps someone who does not want it, is it help? Yelling God is Great while killing people pretty much defines wacko. Not religious piety.
But I also have no stocks in the military/industrial complex or Haliburton and such. If I was making money off these wars perhaps I would have a different viewpoint. I know somebody has to be making a killing off the government (tax) money spent on the war.
If the government had spent that much money on health care instead of blowing stuff up the U.S.A. would have been better off and we would have more troops and bombs to blow stuff up in Afganistan.
Before this gets settled one way or the other, we will probably be fighting the Iran theocracy.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... putting quotes around something makes it "a quote". You may also notice that the portion you quoted was not in quotes in the article. That means he didn't say that either. What it means is the author of the article put two things together to get that and then presented as a single coherant thought... of which you seem to be fully accepting.
The title of the thread is wrong. The person being quoted did not say that. The need to modify an exerpt from the article and surround it with quotes pretty much implies that the thread starter needed a little more fuel than the article had in it. Nothing like making alot out of very little.
Q: Should we have gone into Iraq?
A: No
Look at that Q&A and tell me how it could mean anything other than what you "quoted".
Agree on all counts.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I did not see "Iraq WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER" anywhere in that article.
This is getting all too typical these days.
You're right, it isn't there--and I just noticed, CBS reporters apparently aren't real familiar with geography, OR our government--- it's not JOHN Rockefeller from Arkansas, (the 2 senators from Ark are Pryor and Lincoln), but JAY Rockefeller from West Virginia
He doesn't say it there, but he DOES say it here:link (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008029.php) (I'm dialup, so I have to assume that's an audio or video link nested in there)
-
Originally posted by Neubob
That 300 billion would have been better off in the hands of R and D departments of 100 high-tech firms so that in another decade, we can finally end our dependance on the Arab world and let them shrivel back into the sands from which they arose.
I'd prefer the $300B just be back in the hands of the taxpayers, but your idea is decent. Hell just about anything would have been better than what the government chose to do with it.
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
Before this gets settled one way or the other, we will probably be fighting the Iran theocracy.
Unlike Vietnam, we can't just walk away from the middle east. So, should the Iraqi democracy fail and an Iranian theocracy take it's place there will be plenty of dissidents in the area including in Iran itself willing to make a lot of noise. Especially with US support. What goes around comes around. :aok
-
Ok... I hate taxes.
I also don't believe that any government has the right to take away any of it's citizens human rights.
I believe that we as humans should help anyone who is under the yolk of such a government.
I also beleive the no government is free of this kind of behavior. I believe we can work on our own flaws and... work on some of the worst areas at the same time.
Every human should be against tyranny and no human should live under it... any human should be prepared to sacrafice his life to get away from it.
life under tyranny is no life at all.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
They have to find something to look up to given their utterly pathetic history.
And you would compare it to... yours?
heh.