Reply With Quote
I want ya'll to tell me what was so misleading about that statement....
What is so damn bad about that statement?
Because everyone thought he had WMD, and had for a half decade?
And furthermore...if it was for Oil why go to the UN first, why say there were WMD when there were none?
I want ya'll to tell me what was so misleading about that statement....
What unacceptable behavior is that? Breaking Security council resolutions? Israel has snubbed the UN for years regarding it's own nuclear weapons program and today possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. Where's your outrage, whoot?In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.
Sunni Saddam was bluffing about the nukes, his enemy was Shiite Iran that he had already attacked, not the US.
"suspecting" there were nukes isn't suffiicient for starting a war. Terminally unserious dubya doesn't/didn't realize it, but war is serious business. He's wasted 10's of 1000s of US lives, bodies, and minds for absolutely no benefit to the US or the world, while Afghanistan is STILL not under control.
No matter how many suspected Saddam's nukes, only Repugs/PNAC/AEI/neo- s agitated aggressively, cherry picking and fabricating the intelligence to support their bull case, classifying/hiding/supressing all doubts about that intel, bullying and sliming dissenters as traitors and as being soft on terror (Saddam was not a jihadi terrorist).
If nukes were the primary and sufficient reason, then why all the lies about yellowcake, Saddam+WTC, Saddam+al Quaida, aluminum tubes, mobile bio-weapons labs?
Because, after thorough inspection for years by the UN inspectors, all dubya and head had were su ions about nukes, not ANY evidence of nukes.
The Repugs/neo- s wanted that war for oil NO MATTER WHAT, and they'd tell any lie to get that war going. They don't care now that the intel was "bad" , and they didn't care then about bad intel (they ing CREATED bad intel before the invasion).
Well, they got their ing war, and they have totally botched it. And you bad-ass war-mongers want these ing incompetent Repugs to go after Iran? They'd that up, too.
My bad..that was John Kerry speaking in 1997.
boutons...he made the best case he could and used the AUMF to his benefit...
That's politics plain and simple, that's trying to get what you want out of the law, and every politician in the world does it...and just about every Pres ever given similar power, has used it.
You can argue it was for oil...you can also argue that it was not being willing to take a chance on their intel being wrong. You can argue it was both, but what you can't say is that he didn't attempt to make it a multilateral action.
no those countries aren't going to get paid for us doing the dirty work... them, if they want that Oil then they should have signed on, but see, they were signed on already. We're paying for the war...might as well be American Companies(and the other contributers) that benefit.
We pay for the UN, it stabs us in the back...
We rebuilt Europe, they mostly stab us in the back
So on and so forth... em.
Bottom line is that Saddam needed to go...he should have been taken out long before. Our intel was inaccurate in the first war, way underestimating him, and that was when he we had good intel.
And you continually overlook the toll the sanctions were taking on the Iraqi people, and you would have them consigned to indefinite suffering, while Saddam lives high...that's what you would do boutons...indefinite suffering of the people, while Saddam lives it up.
Whott try and answer some simple questions. Which branch of govt has the highest level of access to intel? Which branch is responsible for vetting the information and passing it along to other branches? If one branch of govt was given bad information are they at fault for the aftermath? Or is the branch that purposely gave out only half of the information at fault? ........ (jeopardy theme)............................................ .................................................. .....Considering Congress never got the full picture from Bush and the boys it's hard to try and pin the unecessary war on them. Wouldn't Bush be ultimately responsible for the unecessary war? Considering the GOP is the party of 'personal accountability/responsibility'?
Israel is not going around telling the world that Iran, Syria
or any other nation has no right to exist.
Our intelleigence in the mid-east nearly completely dismantled during the Clinton era...
He and the UN sat there with their thumbs up their asses after Saddam kicked out the Weapons inspectors for 4 ing years.
During that time Clinton and virtually every world leader made the same claims Bush made, and there was military actions being to Iraq during this period.
The only thing Bush did differently, was actually take Saddam out.
Instead of just sitting htere getting sucked off and shooting an occassional cruise missle, while the infant mortality rate in Iraq skyrocketed....
ANd the funniest thing is...the only part of the UN sanctions that actually was maintained was the ones that punished the people, Saddam was getting stuff through the UN that was on the sanctioned list, that was useful for the creation of WMD.
Sorry but Bush isn't the only corrupt politician, he's not the only one to act in the interests of his country, and he's damn sure not hte first President to use a loophole in situational powers ceded to him by congresss, to engage America in a war. It's been done by a ton of Presidents...including Lincoln.
The Civil War was started by Lincoln while Congress was in recess.
Ok so Bush is corrupt...why aren't you offended at all the corruption in the UN? THe way companies, state sponsored companies in France, and Russia, were violating hte OFF program, signing deals with Saddam for post sanction development deals...the main reasons for their opposition to this war.
Saddam is gone...that's a good thing. Putting some form of Democracy in an Arab country...is a good thing.
What I find so offensive about the lib mindset...
No one uses their right to free speech more, to attack their own govt...than Liberals...
Yet they'd deny that same right to virtually every citizen in the middle east.
People in Iraq, Syria, and Iran take their lives, and the lives of all memebers of their family into dangerous area when they make the slightest criticism of their govts.
You just don't understand how the denials of the most basic human rights and freedoms breeds corruption...you don't underatand how suffering and brutal dictators breed religious fantaticism...
Last edited by whottt; 04-07-2007 at 11:17 AM.
So it's Clinton's fault..funny thing is the after Gulf War I Iraq's capabilities became diminished while Clinton was in office.. SO he did something right. He caught the 93 WTC bombers..put them away...
You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy? Was that considered before ushing into Iraq? You know Whott there were many people, including myself, who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to invading Iraq. My one concern was why so soon? Was the country ready for it? I also had questions about Iraq's ability to hand wmds to terrorists. I agreed with Bush but in the back of my mind I was thinking why so soon. I watched Colin Powell talk of mobile bio weapons labs. I heard about Iraq's drones that could reach the US in 45 minutes, and the stockpiles of wmds which were of a concern to me. I started to question Bush more when he went to the UN and essentially told Saddam prove you don't have them. I thought to myslef how is that possible? I became su ious from that ,moment on BUT I still gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Then the UN inspectors cam back and said Saddam no longer possessed wmds.. What did Bush do? He asked them to leave. Menwhile back home Dummy Dumsfeld was belittling our allies and the GOP was renaming french fries and then low and behold we invade Iraq..
Ever since then we have heard stroy after story about Bush and company using intel that was 'shaky' to say the least and they knew it.. by this point I was told oh well too bad Bush is a wartime president..
So it's Clinton's fault..funny thing is the after Gulf War I Iraq's capabilities became diminished while Clinton was in office.. SO he did something right. He caught the 93 WTC bombers..put them away...
You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy? Was that considered before ushing into Iraq? You know Whott there were many people, including myself, who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to invading Iraq. My one concern was why so soon? Was the country ready for it? I also had questions about Iraq's ability to hand wmds to terrorists. I agreed with Bush but in the back of my mind I was thinking why so soon. I watched Colin Powell talk of mobile bio weapons labs. I heard about Iraq's drones that could reach the US in 45 minutes, and the stockpiles of wmds which were of a concern to me. I started to question Bush more when he went to the UN and essentially told Saddam prove you don't have them. I thought to myslef how is that possible? I became su ious from that ,moment on BUT I still gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Then the UN inspectors cam back and said Saddam no longer possessed wmds.. What did Bush do? He asked them to leave. Menwhile back home Dummy Dumsfeld was belittling our allies and the GOP was renaming french fries and then low and behold we invade Iraq..
Ever since then we have heard stroy after story about Bush and company using intel that was 'shaky' to say the least and they knew it..
Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated how naive the Repugs/neo- s were to assume the US could invade and then install successful, stable, self-sustaining democracy, that took many decades to establish in the USA.
The road to is paved with good intentions. is where we are, and retro-actively saying the Repugs had good intentions in grabbing Iraqi oil is total ex post facto bull .
The majorities of both countries (as are most countries in the region, minus secular, westernized Israel) are comparatively very backward (vs. industrial democracies), with no legal/judicial/political/industrial/middle-class underpinnings required by democracy.
That's tough for the people in those countries, but invading them hasn't achieved anything, not for them, not for the USA, while 10s of 1000s of those people have died and will continue to die directly as a result of the Repugs and their incompetent, unnecessary bull wars.
I note that the US hasn't invaded other countries like the Horn of Africa, Darfur, Zimbabwe, West Africa, Myanamar where the people are oppressed and denied democracy. But, they don't have any oil compared with Iraq.
A Frenchman once said "Countries don't have friends. They only have interests". The Repugs invaded Iraq because they were interested in the oil, not because they wanted to make friends.
Ah, yes some very astute reasoning. Some people just
cant function unless they live under a dictator. They
are just not capable of being free to choose their own
government.
Are these countries threats to the U.S?
The first Democracy in History was in what is now known as Iraq....
Representative Government was invented there.
Ins utions for higher learning was invented there.
Up until about 400 years ago the Mid-East Culture was always among the most advanced...the came the decay of the Ottoman Empire.
The Mid-East didn't do this to themselves...
It's been conquered and reconquered and invaded, it's par ioned, and governed by Europe, by Ottoman Empire.
They've had governments imposed on them, religion forced on them time and time again.
THe guys didn't embrace Islam...evne the ing Arabs didn't embrace it...it was imposed on them them same way catholicism was imposed on the indigenous American people conqured by Spain.
IT's riches and dispute over who would raid them, was the heart of WWII, and WWII, it's at the heart of Usama's ultimate gain(to rule Saudi Arabia and ressurect the OttomanEmpire)...i
But when it turned into a true inhosplitable hole...that was Europe did that. Post WWI and WWII. And most of our ups n that region have come from listening to Europe.
Who paritioned Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan? Israel and the Palestinians?
You know who did that ? The British and the French...
When the people were given the chance, nearly every country favored a cons utional monarchy or even Democracy...
Then they got caught between us and the Russians in the ColdWar...
The Russians were the ones that revived and funded Islamic Terror...the Russians funded the PLO oroginally.
Every ing free election in the region was corrupted by the ing Soviets trying to stick one of their #$%34w commie rulers in power.
The Iranians hating us because we overthrew Mossadeq?
That was a British plan. And all our little covert governmental coups during the cold war were taken directly out of the Bristish play book...
Europe is a collection of elitist assholes and they always have bee, they've always thought they've known what's best for everyone, they've always imposed their culture on people...
I mean after WWI, who ed Germany with crushing economic war reparations? Against our advice...
France.
And you guys want to follow them on this...they are the ultimate snobs and they wouldn't know how to install a legit government if you put a gun to their head.
Sersiously...study up on some war history sometimes...
Then you'll see why I lost respect for you guys the second you embraced a candidate who wanted Europe to lead us on this.
Europe created this middle -east...
Just like Europe created WWI and WWII...
And the Vietnam War
And the Korean War
Why do you think 200 million Native Americans speak a European Language and practice European Religions in Mexico and LA....
Because ing Europe imposed it on them...
Cultural anniahlation on a scale unmatched...took away theiru entire cultural iden y...it was either convert to superior European concepts..or live as slave.
And now you guys want to listen to these same countries...
They aren't like us...they never have been, they may look like us, they may talk like us, but they are the most elitist culture ont he planet.
Not all of them...actually a lot of the Eastern European nations are very similar in values to us, but Western Europe...and traditional European Powers...
Russia
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
Portugal
The UK
Those guys are assholes...
And ya'll want to follow them...even after their petty attemps to compete with each other for prestige and power resulted in us becoming embroiled in two World Wars and suffering millions dead...
You want to know their major contributions to the world over the last few hundred years or so?
Comminism
Nazism
Anti-Semitism
Socialism
WWI
WWII
The Palestine Israeli Conflict
Racism(the practice of intelligence classification based on skin tone)
And their greatest...for you libs out there...the American Empire.
If they hadn't kept dragging us into their bull power plays...we wouldn't be the World's Police now...something we never wanted, until we figured out it was likely the only way we could avoid being drug into their Wars.
And at the heart of their Anti-Americanism now is just simplyt he fact that we passed them in so many ways...
At the heart of this conflict is their attempts to regain control over the mineral wealth of the middle-east...it is an Economic War between America and the EU, and within the EU over who will emerge as the true power.....well the EU leaders at the time of the Iraq War...The Franco German alliance, or the UK.
I mean I don't know why anyone gives any credibility to France and Germany...read some recent history sometime...
Then tell me when they became better at this than us.
They still can't get along with each other to save their own lives...they still trying to prove who is better. That's why the EU can't get it's together.
I don't give a who is better, and I think most Americans looked at them as equals or friends, and see the split as error on our part, when really it's just a selfish attempt to reclaim prestige on their part. At least the Brits are trying to make good on past wrongs...but damned if I am going to follow their lead.
And I can't help it if I like hamburgers and special effects bonanzas...I don't give a who else likes it...and Europe needs to just let it go...and trying being real for once.
Last edited by whottt; 04-07-2007 at 01:27 PM.
Communism is Europe's answer for their own elitism...
Not ours.
We aren't elitist and we never have been...we're the ones who end up doing the ing dirty work...
We're the plumbers....
To Europe I simply say...If you want to get paid like a plumbers...I suggest you learn to clean up your own .
Instead they got us to do it...and now they are dependent on us for it.
They don't look at us like we are some intellectual powerhouse...they look at us as a bunch of hillbillies...that through some fluke surpassed them in just about every facet...
And the far reaching sweep of American culture is their all time envy...
Especially since we don't have to impose ours...we just make movies everyone likes...and junk food. No imposition needed.
Our reduced intelligence capaiblity in the Mid-East is 100% Clinton's fault.
He was the one that championed cutting it, just like he cut a ton of military funding...
Even Kerry ed about his cutting the intelligence budget when he was doing it.
Clinton's fault, he's got some of the blame, as do Reagan and Bush I and Carter, and Nixon...and every President going to back to Truman.
The funny thing is, Bush is probably less culpable for the Mid-East situation of any President since WWII...he had been in office for mere months when plans that had been in play for decades came to fruition. And a Presidential passing of the buck caught up to him...buck passing that even included his own father.
It's not about blame to me....could he(Clinton) have done better? Yes he could have. Much better. But hey, hindsight is 20/20, I realize that, do you?
Clinton was a great domestic President and extremely charismatic and likable diplomat, but honestly? His foreign policy was ...I wasn't paying much attention to it at the time though...since I was thrilled with what was happening domestically.
I think Clinton was the right Presidnet at the right time, given the alternatives, much like Bush has been...
Bush has had a of a lot tougher job though.
You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy? Was that considered before ushing into Iraq? You know Whott there were many people, including myself, who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to invading Iraq. My one concern was why so soon? Was the country ready for it? I also had questions about Iraq's ability to hand wmds to terrorists. I agreed with Bush but in the back of my mind I was thinking why so soon. I watched Colin Powell talk of mobile bio weapons labs. I heard about Iraq's drones that could reach the US in 45 minutes, and the stockpiles of wmds which were of a concern to me. I started to question Bush more when he went to the UN and essentially told Saddam prove you don't have them. I thought to myslef how is that possible? I became su ious from that ,moment on BUT I still gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Then the UN inspectors cam back and said Saddam no longer possessed wmds.. What did Bush do? He asked them to leave. Menwhile back home Dummy Dumsfeld was belittling our allies and the GOP was renaming french fries and then low and behold we invade Iraq..
Ever since then we have heard stroy after story about Bush and company using intel that was 'shaky' to say the least and they knew it.. by this point I was told oh well too bad Bush is a wartime president..
We couldn't rely on our intel...we were seeking the intel of other countries from Sept 11 on...that was how badly our intel in the region had detrioriated while Clinton wasn't stopping thinkin' about tomorrow. We were having to rely on freaking Italian intelligence at one point.
Last edited by whottt; 04-07-2007 at 01:47 PM.
nobody forced dubya to invade Iraq.
The Iraq oil war was exclusively the late 90s initiative of the PNAC/AEI/neo- cabal.
Quit blaming Iraq on Clinton and everybody before dubya.
This fiasco, totally unnecessary, is 100% the fault of dubya/ head/neo- s. They agitated and bullied for it. It was their choice, the failure is exclusively theirs, too.
Last edited by boutons_; 04-07-2007 at 05:37 PM.
Every world leader in the 90's said Saddam needed to be removed...
Including Clinton
Bush was the one that did it.
And the only President to cut intelligence funding was Clinton...
Wait.....let me guess, you think former head of the CIA Bush Sr was the one that cut it?
I know boutons...Sadsam being gone = bad
You should be pissed off at the total failure of the international commiunity to remove a dictator that showed no respect for international law, cease fire agreements, sanctions...
no, you don't know .
Sadsam being in place = better than the terrorist-harboring hole Iraq is now, and will be worse under Iranian influence after the US leaves in defeat.
Last edited by boutons_; 04-08-2007 at 11:59 AM.
Fasle...
The Iranian Theorcracy, while hostile to us...
Is much better than Iraq under Saddam, in terms of equal and human rights...they are still oppressive and medevil about it...but more accountable than a single dictator ruling his minority party over a majority.
And the Shia's aren't the crazy as the Sunnis are anyway.
No Saddam being gone is a good thing...for us, for the Middle East, for the World.
Yeah people are dying...that's what happens in war...but at least now one big obstacle to liberalising the mid-east is gone.
If it was up to Liberals there would be no liberals. In this conflict you stand with just about the most conservative people on the planet.
No, it isn't.
FTFY....
Minorities ruling over majorities is a good thing eh?
Or only in Iraq?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
