Given all that has happened in Iraq, has it been

[freak6]

Worth it?

Why or Why not?

Vote away.

[55CrushEm]

You forgot one option.....

"No, because I'm a dumbass liberal peacenik that thinks NO war is justified, and I'd rather kiss the terrorists a$$e$."

Further, given your first 5 options (all based on number of casualties).....it would appear that you would have been of the opinion that WWII was a failure, given that you think the success or failure of a war hinges solely on the number of casualities incurred....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You forgot one option.....

"No, because I'm a dumbass liberal peacenik that thinks NO war is justified, and I'd rather kiss the terrorists a$$e$."

That's funny - most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan when they were advised that we were going after the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11.

But inconvenient facts like these never seem to deter you when you're kneeling and bobbing for this inept, corrupt administration.

Further, given your first 5 options (all based on number of casualties).....it would appear that you would have been of the opinion that WWII was a failure, given that you think the success or failure of a war hinges solely on the number of casualities incurred....

Um, there's one important difference, genius:

Unlike iraq and Saddam Hussein, Japan did attack the U.S. and Hitler and the nazis were a threat.

[freak6]

You forgot one option.....

"No, because I'm a dumbass liberal peacenik that thinks NO war is justified, and I'd rather kiss the terrorists a$$e$."



You are the dumbass, I am a Sgt in the Marines aching to kill terrorists, but I am "stuck" in S.D. Whatever the case, Iraq was a mistake, only a moron would say otherwise. Osama and the Taliban should have been are target until they were obliterated. Iraq has hurt us in the global war on terror, and created more terrorists than you can fathom, according to every intel bureau in the world, including the C.I. the fkn A, MORON.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are the dumbass, I am a Sgt in the Marines aching to kill terrorists, but I am "stuck" in S.D. Whatever the case, Iraq was a mistake, only a moron would say otherwise. Osama and the Taliban should have been are target until they were obliterated. Iraq has hurt us in the global war on terror, and created more terrorists than you can fathom, according to every intel bureau in the world, including the C.I. the fkn A, MORON.

^5 :thumbsup:

55dumbass is getting beaten down with all sorts of inconvenient facts today.

(But what's new there?)

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Someone selected the "Yes, I am a dumbass republican that thinks Bush is right" option.

At least he's honest. :D

[TheDave]

I selected all of the above... heh

[Spider]

No but my reason wasnt listed .....
Iraq wasnt worth it cause Iraq exploited a weakness , a chink in our armour .....
not our Military , our Military has been Títs .......
but it removed any doubt around the world that Junior is an Idiot .........

[Play2win]

War should always be the last option... BUT, when it is that last option, we should bring down the HELLFIRE... Not play Patty-Cakes...

[55CrushEm]

I am a Sgt in the Marines aching to kill terrorists

The pride of your unit, no doubt......:oyvey:

For someone currently in the military....I've never heard ANYONE badmouth the Commander-in-chief as badly as you....not even soldiers under that imbecile Clinton.....

You're a disgrace......

And keep waving your enlisted credentials in front of me.....not impressed. My brother is a Major in the Air Force.....try getting a college education before you try to convince others how smart you are....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You're a disgrace......
Says the Bush bot who already done his duty to the Bush regime and volunteered for duty in Iraq, correct?

[55CrushEm]

Says the Bush bot who already done his duty to the Bush regime and volunteered for duty in Iraq, correct?

Please point me to one post where I've stated that I'm a Bush fan, or "Bushbot" as you call it (you libs really get a kick out of your silly names, don't you).

If you took your head out of your arse long enough to actually read others' posts....you'd see that I'm not a big fan of Bush.

And as far as volunteering for Iraq....before you call me out, why don't you look in the mirror. A bit of hypocrasy on your part, yes? But that's what loony lefties are best at....

[Spider]

Please point me to one post where I've stated that I'm a Bush fan, or "Bushbot" as you call it (you libs really get a kick out of your silly names, don't you).

If you took your head out of your arse long enough to actually read others' posts....you'd see that I'm not a big fan of Bush.

And as far as volunteering for Iraq....before you call me out, why don't you look in the mirror. A bit of hypocrasy on your part, yes? But that's what loony lefties are best at....
I would dare say the biggest difference is , the loonly left is AGAINST the war in Iraq , Not In SUPPORT .. minor detail I know .......
that driver I had dinner with that lost his son , summed it up best ...... Love the troops hate the war ........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Please point me to one post where I've stated that I'm a Bush fan, or "Bushbot" as you call it (you libs really get a kick out of your silly names, don't you). Sure you're not

If you took your head out of your arse long enough to actually read others' posts....you'd see that I'm not a big fan of Bush.See above

And as far as volunteering for Iraq....before you call me out, why don't you look in the mirror. A bit of hypocrasy on your part, yes? But that's what loony lefties are best at.... None on my part and why haven't you volunteered for the cause you support? Our troops need to be rotated out so thay can come home to their wives and families.

[55CrushEm]

I would dare say the biggest difference is , the loonly left is AGAINST the war in Iraq , Not In SUPPORT .. minor detail I know .......
that driver I had dinner with that lost his son , summed it up best ...... Love the troops hate the war ........

Last I checked, Spide....nobody LOVES war.....

[55CrushEm]

And Slug, since you're so interested in my service, or lack thereof.....the military wouldn't take my "on the front lines" anyway......

About 10 years ago, I did a "Robert Edwards" to my knee.....tore 3 of 4 ligaments.

Basically the surgeon at Mass General Hospital who rebuilt my knee said that the only thing holding my lower leg to my upper leg was the skin.....8 hour surgery....he was the best knee surgeon at Mass General (so I was told), and he said it was the worst knee injury he had EVER seen.....

[Spider]

Last I checked, Spide....nobody LOVES war.....
I wish that was true ...... But hard up against the wall to prove Bush doesnt ...
I keep on going back to the WMD search joke he made ... i think Bush wanted this war , he and his clan underestimated the enemy .........

[defenseman]

You forgot one option.....

"No, because I'm a dumbass liberal peacenik that thinks NO war is justified, and I'd rather kiss the terrorists a$$e$."

Further, given your first 5 options (all based on number of casualties).....it would appear that you would have been of the opinion that WWII was a failure, given that you think the success or failure of a war hinges solely on the number of casualities incurred....

this must be a "CNN" poll. Catch 22 for the most part. Left one other thing out, ""this poll obviously leans left and if you are a republican you're wasting your time even attempting this poll, so don't vote to enable me to get the results I desire,thanks for playing""....real nice...dman

[defenseman]

I wish that was true ...... But hard up against the wall to prove Bush doesnt ...
I keep on going back to the WMD search joke he made ... i think Bush wanted this war , he and his clan underestimated the enemy .........

Nobody wants war...dman...EXCEPT for terrorists and those "have nots" out there that think it's a way to become a "have"..

[Spider]

Nobody wants war...dman...EXCEPT for terrorists and those "have nots" out there that think it's a way to become a "have"..
oh that did it ...no way Bush wants war , how silly of me to think Bush wanted War in Iraq ..........

[defenseman]

And Slug, since you're so interested in my service, or lack thereof.....the military wouldn't take my "on the front lines" anyway......

About 10 years ago, I did a "Robert Edwards" to my knee.....tore 3 of 4 ligaments.

Basically the surgeon at Mass General Hospital who rebuilt my knee said that the only thing holding my lower leg to my upper leg was the skin.....8 hour surgery....he was the best knee surgeon at Mass General (so I was told), and he said it was the worst knee injury he had EVER seen.....

55crushem, you have about as good of a chance of getting into the military with that injury as an ice cube has of not melting in the summer sun at the beach. We could not take you due to the nature of the injury, and the severity of the injury. You'd get shot down at any MEPS across the country. The service in question would attempt a medical waiver for you possibly, but it would get disapproved by BUMED..3 of 4 ligaments is pretty much automatic disqualification...dman

Knee injuries can get in, however the ortho consults and documentation required, quite honestly will make any recruiter in the military cringe, and will definitely lower your chances significantly..

[55CrushEm]

Yes, I actually DISLOCATED my right knee......it was bent in a "L" shape.

Think of yourself sitting on the ground with both legs straight out in front of you.....then take your right knee and bend it to the left so your lower right leg is crossing your left leg.....without lifting your hamstring off the ground....

People don't realize....while ACL tears happen all the time.....a total knee dislocation is extremely rare....probably becaues the knee is such a big, sturdy joint, and thus very difficult to dislocate.....but I did it.....

Considering that I can walk normally, without any limp.....I'm happy.....I still waterski too....

[Spider]

I didnt get into the Military , cause I was wanted for attempted Murder , instead of facing the Charge , I ran . if I knew then what I know now , I wouldnt have ran, but being in the military just wasnt meant to be .....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And Slug, since you're so interested in my service, or lack thereof.....the military wouldn't take my "on the front lines" anyway......

About 10 years ago, I did a "Robert Edwards" to my knee.....tore 3 of 4 ligaments.

Basically the surgeon at Mass General Hospital who rebuilt my knee said that the only thing holding my lower leg to my upper leg was the skin.....8 hour surgery....he was the best knee surgeon at Mass General (so I was told), and he said it was the worst knee injury he had EVER seen.....
Maybe, but would you go to Iraq if you could? I tore multiple ligaments and broke a bone in my ankle in basic training and was in a cast for weeks. Had to extend basic and finished and continued on to full duty.

[55CrushEm]

Maybe, but would you go to Iraq if you could? I tore multiple ligaments and broke a bone in my ankle in basic training and was in a cast for weeks. Had to extend basic and finished and continued on to full duty.

If the country absolutely NEEDED me to serve, then my honest answer is "YES"....but LABF and you other communists apparently need to be reminded that this is a volunteer military....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If the country absolutely NEEDED me to serve, then my honest answer is "YES"....but LABF and you other communists apparently need to be reminded that this is a volunteer military....

That's what I thought. Bushbot to the core.

[55CrushEm]

That's what I thought. Bushbot to the core.

Whatever makes you feel good, Gomer.....:-*

Your so lucky that Marxists can live freely in this country....

[Spider]

If the country absolutely NEEDED me to serve, then my honest answer is "YES"....but LABF and you other communists apparently need to be reminded that this is a volunteer military....
it aint that , what you and the rest dont see is , we say if you believe in this war , then sign up , do the right thing ....... Dont sit here and tell us about it ..... If I believed in the Iraqi war , I would be driving supply trucks over there , pushing a broom ...... DOING MY PART IN THE WAR EFFORT ...... to many kids today being coddled .... you can support somthing without being active ..... WRONG!!!!!!!

[55CrushEm]

it aint that , what you and the rest dont see is , we say if you believe in this war , then sign up , do the right thing ....... Dont sit here and tell us about it ..... If I believed in the Iraqi war , I would be driving supply trucks over there , pushing a broom ...... DOING MY PART IN THE WAR EFFORT ...... to many kids today being coddled .... you can support somthing without being active ..... WRONG!!!!!!!

And what WE keep saying over and over again....is maybe YOU need to belly up too, if you're constantly going to spout your opinions on it....

I really want the Broncos to win the Superbowl, but do I have to apply for a job with the organization to try and make it happen? Or if I don't, do I have to stop being a Bronco fan?

The laugh-riot is you libs constantly trying to make yourselves sound more patriotic than conservatives....when everyone knows it isn't true (for the most part). You constantly trash our war efforts, and people are sick and tired of it. At least say "We HOPE that things go well in Iraq".....but you don't. Cause people like Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, and Co. really HOPE we fail....all for political points.

The simple fact the Bush is doing the "unpopular" thing, at the very least proves he isn't undertaking any of these war efforts for political points.....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Whatever makes you feel good, Gomer.....:-*
Your so lucky that Marxists can live freely in this country.... :rofl:
Tiresome Bushspeak but I realize it's all you have to defend these people who represent your views.

[55CrushEm]

:rofl:
Tiresome Bushspeak but I realize it's all you have to defend these peoplle who represent your views.

Pot calling the kettle black.....AGAIN.

Does "Bushbot" ring a bell.....yes, tiresome indeed.

[Spider]

And what WE keep saying over and over again....is maybe YOU need to belly up too, if you're constantly going to spout your opinions on it.... Belly up to do what ? march with Cindy Sheehan ?

I really want the Broncos to win the Superbowl, but do I have to apply for a job with the organization to try and make it happen? Or if I don't, do I have to stop being a Bronco fan? This We agree on , but you can buy bronco gear , tickets , help the revenue ...... there are ways

The laugh-riot is you libs constantly trying to make yourselves sound more patriotic than conservatives....when everyone knows it isn't true (for the most part). You constantly trash our war efforts, and people are sick and tired of it. At least say "We HOPE that things go well in Iraq".....but you don't. Cause people like Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, and Co. really HOPE we fail....all for political points.
you are so full of Shít , I will put the same challenge to you as I did D man ...There was no outrage over Afghanistan , in fact Bush had an approval rating of 80% , Hope , We hope , Hope is like píssing in a swimming pool , nice warm feeling but doesnt add up to much ..... and why should we have hope , when we have cowards back here not willing to fight for what they believe in ?

The simple fact the Bush is doing the "unpopular" thing, at the very least proves he isn't undertaking any of these war efforts for political points.....
LOL , thats the biggest load of Shít on this thread ....Bush is doing the wrong thing , not the unpopular .......

[defenseman]

Cindy Sheehan needs to stay in Canada. I for one wish her the best, residing out of the country...dman

[Spider]

Cindy Sheehan needs to stay in Canada. I for one wish her the best, residing out of the country...dman
Too bad Bush didnt follow her . let him screw up Canada for awhile

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cindy Sheehan needs to stay in Canada. I for one wish her the best, residing out of the country...dman
No more than you need to unless you really didn't mean you want repress freedom of speech.

[55CrushEm]

LOL , thats the biggest load of Shít on this thread ....Bush is doing the wrong thing , not the unpopular .......

OK, so once again, what is the libs plan for dealing with terrorism?

More of "nothing" like Bubba did for eight years? Please tell me....

[55CrushEm]

No more than you need to unless you really didn't mean you want repress freedom of speech.

The only group that wants to repress FOS is the loony left.....aren't there groups out there trying to get Ann Coulter's book banned? (no doubt, YOU support this, you hypocrite).

And the only problem we have with Sheehan, is the left saying that no one can respond to her in the public forum.....as if she's "untouchable".

Well, if you're going to enter the public arena with your "ideas"...then accept the fact that people who disagree with you will respond.....probably harshly.

[Spider]

OK, so once again, what is the libs plan for dealing with terrorism?

More of "nothing" like Bubba did for eight years? Please tell me....
nothing ? Hilarious! I suggest you do some reading then get back to me on the Nothing thing ...... you sure are not doing very well today , but given the side you are defending it is pretty hard ........ Bill Clinton was able to hav the 1993 Bombers arrested and locked up .... and where is Ossama Bin Ladin ?

[Spider]

and since when Did Iraq have anything to do with Terrorism ???

[55CrushEm]

nothing ? Hilarious! I suggest you do some reading then get back to me on the Nothing thing ...... you sure are not doing very well today , but given the side you are defending it is pretty hard ........ Bill Clinton was able to hav the 1993 Bombers arrested and locked up .... and where is Ossama Bin Ladin ?

Wow.....he locked up a few terrorists? Well EXUUUUUSE me......he deserves to be labeled the best terrorist-fighting president in history then....right up there with Carter....::)

What did he do about the USS Cole? the embassy bombings? to prevent the 9/11 terrorists from entering the country in the first place?

But hey, lobbing a few cruise missiles at some tents and aspirin factories really showed THEM, huh?

Gitmo ring a bell.....seem like we have a few locked up there, as well.

Osama is holed up in a cave somewhere with little relevance.....do you have to be reminded that this is NOT a "cut the head off the snake" scenario? We got Al-Zarquawhi, didn't we? He has become more dangerous than Bin Laden.....yet, you libs STILL can't find anything good to say about the war efforts.....and before you critize Bush for not getting His Mama Bin Layin, point to Bubba who passed him over TWICE.....

Perhaps YOU'RE not doing too well today....

[55CrushEm]

and since when Did Iraq have anything to do with Terrorism ???

LOL Are you serious?? Ummmm.....always. Saddam had been funding suicide bombers families for YEARS....there have terrorist training camps there for years.

Al Queda is NOT the only terrorist group on the planet, you know.....and regardless, it's now looking more and more like there WERE ties between Iraq and Al Queda.....Al-Zarquawhi was there before the war started in 2003....

But as I say, who cares if it was Al Queda, Hamas, or "Crimson Jihad".....Saddam DID support terrorism.

[Spider]

Wow.....he locked up a few terrorists? Well EXUUUUUSE me......he deserves to be labeled the best terrorist-fighting president in history then....right up there with Carter....::) So much for doing nothing hey ........

What did he do about the USS Cole? the embassy bombings? to prevent the 9/11 terrorists from entering the country in the first place? .... not much he could do , he was on his way out of office and he was impeached for a blow job ........

But hey, lobbing a few cruise missiles at some tents and aspirin factories really showed THEM, huh? and bush has done what ? iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 .. oh wait , we are supposed to ignore that tidbit ......

Gitmo ring a bell.....seem like we have a few locked up there, as well.
Grunts . good job there captian America ........

Osama is holed up in a cave somewhere with little relevance.....do you have to be reminded that this is NOT a "cut the head off the snake" scenario? We got Al-Zarquawhi, didn't we? He has become more dangerous than Bin Laden.....yet, you libs STILL can't find anything good to say about the war efforts.....and before you critize Bush for not getting His Mama Bin Layin, point to Bubba who passed him over TWICE.....

Perhaps YOU'RE not doing too well today....
now it comes out , you think it is ok to let OBL hide out , instead of Facing justice , what as that you were saying about the left not being patriotic ?
We on the left dont want ot give OBL a free ride . we want him to answer for 9-11 , not hiding somewhere ....... yes you are no doing very well today .....

[Spider]

LOL Are you serious?? Ummmm.....always. Saddam had been funding suicide bombers families for YEARS....there have terrorist training camps there for years.

Al Queda is NOT the only terrorist group on the planet, you know.....and regardless, it's now looking more and more like there WERE ties between Iraq and Al Queda.....Al-Zarquawhi was there before the war started in 2003....

But as I say, who cares if it was Al Queda, Hamas, or "Crimson Jihad".....Saddam DID support terrorism.
Bullshít . plain and simple ....... Saudia Arabia supports terrorism more then Saddam ever did .... you will have to do better then that ....

[55CrushEm]

Bullshít . plain and simple ....... Saudia Arabia supports terrorism more then Saddam ever did .... you will have to do better then that ....

Then you're blind....what can I say. If you believe that Saddam has never supported terrorism in ANY way, you're in the minority my friend.

It is practically common knowledge that he had paid families of suicide bombers $20k-$30k to carry out their handy-work in Isreal.....

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=§Pide®]So much for doing nothing hey ........

.... not much he could do , he was on his way out of office and he was impeached for a blow job ........

Bulls**t!!!!! There were numerous options on the table. He failed to take positive action to get , secure and KILL the SOB's responsible. As, 55 said, he lobbed some fodder out there, but NEVER intended on it fixing the problem. I am NOT the only one in the Navy who will ALWAYS hold his lack of backbone on this subject against him. He was the epitomy of "spineless" wrt his response to the USS COLE. Never will trust him again...dman

*There were a cubic butt ton of Navy personnel ready to go do what had to be done on this. Including myself. And, we got told , in so many words , to stand down. F*&king gutless bastard....dman

[Spider]

Then you're blind....what can I say. If you believe that Saddam has never supported terrorism in ANY way, you're in the minority my friend.

It is practically common knowledge that he had paid families of suicide bombers $20k-$30k to carry out their handy-work in Isreal.....
LOL go look up what the Saudis gave ......
we should have invaded the Sauds first going by your criteria ..... and iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 ...... like I said , you are not doing well today ....... Shooting fish in a barrel

[55CrushEm]

.... not much he could do , he was on his way out of office

Ahh, another Clinton apologist. Funny how there wasn't "much he could do" cause he was on his way out of office......must have been too busy remembering all the criminals he had to pardon, like Mark Rich. Sure, that deserves a pass.....


Grunts . good job there captian America ........

Terrorist though, yes? And by this statement, you have confirmed yet again that you must think this is "cut the head off the snake" scenario.....that if we get Bin Laden, all terrorism will just stop........yah.


you think it is ok to let OBL hide out , instead of Facing justice

I said that? So you'd rather spend the billions of dollars to get ONE man than kill hundreds of terrorists every day? Not very cost effective, especially since you are the ones crying about the cost of the war.....

[55CrushEm]

Shooting fish in a barrel

I'm not comparing the Saudis to Iraq.....you are. Your point was that Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism.....you are wrong, plain and simple.

Yes, fish in a barrel......

[Spider]

[QUOTE=§Pide®]So much for doing nothing hey ........

.... not much he could do , he was on his way out of office and he was impeached for a blow job ........

Bulls**t!!!!! There were numerous options on the table. He failed to take positive action to get , secure and KILL the SOB's responsible. As, 55 said, he lobbed some fodder out there, but NEVER intended on it fixing the problem. I am NOT the only one in the Navy who will ALWAYS hold his lack of backbone on this subject against him. He was the epitomy of "spineless" wrt his response to the USS COLE. Never will trust him again...dman

*There were a cubic butt ton of Navy personnel ready to go do what had to be done on this. Including myself. And, we got told , in so many words , to stand down. F*&king gutless bastard....dman

umm you do realize that the cole Bombing happened in the middl of oct 2000 right ? Bush took over in January 2001 ....... What is it you Bushbots keep telling us ? oh thats right fighting terrorism takes time , rome wasnt built in a day , give Bush more time ......... I know double speak when I hear it . it is so easy to get swept away by propaganda ...............

[Spider]

I'm not comparing the Saudis to Iraq.....you are. Your point was that Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorism.....you are wrong, plain and simple.

Yes, fish in a barrel......
LOL keep reaching ......

[Spider]

Hilarious! Crush 55 . we had to invade iraq cause they supported terrorism By golly ...... Spider well if thats the case Saudi should have been #1 on the list , they support more terrorism then Saddam ........ i still dont believe Saddam supported terrorism , i think that is more lik the WMD fiasco , but either way it was a drop in the bucket compared to the Sauds

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=defenseman]

umm you do realize that the cole Bombing happened in the middl of oct 2000 right ? Bush took over in January 2001 ....... What is it you Bushbots keep telling us ? oh thats right fighting terrorism takes time , rome wasnt built in a day , give Bush more time ......... I know double speak when I hear it . it is so easy to get swept away by propaganda ...............

Doesn't matter from where I sit. And, when you are responsible at the time, the fact that you are leaving soon should have no bearing on it from where I sit. and to be honest, we were positioned in such a manner to get them quickly for once. Didn't like it one bit, never will...dman

[Spider]

[QUOTE=§Pide®]

Doesn't matter from where I sit. And, when you are responsible at the time, the fact that you are leaving soon should have no bearing on it from where I sit. and to be honest, we were positioned in such a manner to get them quickly for once. Didn't like it one bit, never will...dman
I know that the FBI ran into brick wall over the yemen investigators claiming it was a generator accident then a Sucicide attack ..... good thing we stuck to our guns and proved it was a bombing ....... I wish I remembered all the details more .....

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=defenseman]
I know that the FBI ran into brick wall over the yemen investigators claiming it was a generator accident then a Sucicide attack ..... good thing we stuck to our guns and proved it was a bombing ....... I wish I remembered all the details more .....

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, we were ideally positioned in nearly every corner to nail these guys to the bulkhead. the decision was made to back off. Would have really enjoyed "toasting" the responsible groups all to hell. Alot of us "sailors" were literally beside ourselves when the decision was made to standdown. ....dman

[55CrushEm]

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, we were ideally positioned in nearly every corner to nail these guys to the bulkhead. the decision was made to back off. Would have really enjoyed "toasting" the responsible groups all to hell. Alot of us "sailors" were literally beside ourselves when the decision was made to standdown. ....dman

But wait, dman.....Bubba did all he could.....Uhh

[defenseman]

But wait, dman.....Bubba did all he could.....Uhh

Again, presidential "turnover" is not a reason to delay justice in the USS COLE scenario. It should have been unannounced, swift, and as painful as possible for the guilty parties involved. Payback, should have been a bitch.....dman

[bendog]

Again, presidential "turnover" is not a reason to delay justice in the USS COLE scenario. It should have been unannounced, swift, and as painful as possible for the guilty parties involved. Payback, should have been a b****.....dman
No. Payback necessitating nationbuilding in Afghan. WJC did the right thing. Bushii wanted the natl gas, but ... well, most of us did too.

[Spider]

[QUOTE=§Pide®]

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, we were ideally positioned in nearly every corner to nail these guys to the bulkhead. the decision was made to back off. Would have really enjoyed "toasting" the responsible groups all to hell. Alot of us "sailors" were literally beside ourselves when the decision was made to standdown. ....dman
I feel safe in taking your word on this , like I said there is so much I dont remember .....but you are a stand up guy , so I will believe you on this point ..........

[Spider]

Again, presidential "turnover" is not a reason to delay justice in the USS COLE scenario. It should have been unannounced, swift, and as painful as possible for the guilty parties involved. Payback, should have been a b****.....dman
thats the way i feel about OBL ..........attacking people that cant fight back ( those in the WTC) somthing I cant forgive ....... I want OBL to pay , and pay dearly for what he had done .........Just living in a cave isnt good enough ...... want him to suffer , and suffer bad .......

[The Lone Bolt]

Obviously this pool was not a serious effort to get people's opinions, just an effort to make a political point.

But to answer the question seriously, I would have to say it's too soon to tell if it was "worth it."

Yes, I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from power by military force. I have made my reasons clear on other threads. But I am also a reluctant supporter of this war. I don't think it was all a blood-for-oil conspiracy, but I admit it's possible. I think the evidence suggests that Saddam was dangerous and removing him from power was the right thing to do. On the other hand, I can understand why some think that Bush lied and it's all about oil, I just don't think they have enough of a case (as of yet).

I can't serve because I'm over 40. But if I could, would I? For a less controversial war and a greater need for troops, then yes. But I think that asking anyone who supports the war when they are going to join up is unfair. Let me ask some of you who hold that position a couple of questions:

You are against crime right? So why haven't you joined the police force?

You're against fires, right? So why haven't you joined the fire department?

You're in favor of saving lives, right? So why aren't you in medical school?


To suggest that supporters of the war who haven't joined up to fight are hypocrites is unreasonable. Not all of us are cut out to be soldiers, although we could be if absolutely necessary. I support our troops and they have my greatest admiration and respect. Not everyone can do what they do.

[defenseman]

thats the way i feel about OBL ..........attacking people that cant fight back ( those in the WTC) somthing I cant forgive ....... I want OBL to pay , and pay dearly for what he had done .........Just living in a cave isnt good enough ...... want him to suffer , and suffer bad .......

As do we all. I'm thinking we'll get him soon to be honest. call it a hunch..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Let me ask some of you who hold that position a couple of questions:

You are against crime right? So why haven't you joined the police force?

You're against fires, right? So why haven't you joined the fire department?

You're in favor of saving lives, right? So why aren't you in medical school?

To suggest that supporters of the war who haven't joined up to fight are hypocrites is unreasonable.

Bad, bad analogies!!!!! You'll have do better than this.

Fighting Bush's personal grudge match in Iraq has nothing to do with police, firefighting or becoming a doctor in our country. Using your analogy we must continue to attack, invade and occupy all the rest of the countries in the world that have "evil dictators" to save lives.

Comparing an unjust invasion and occupation (police action, nation building) to choosing a career in the U.S. is asinine.

[The Lone Bolt]

Bad, bad analogies!!!!! You'll have do better than this.

Fighting Bush's personal grudge match in Iraq has nothing to do with police, firefighting or becoming a doctor in our country. Using your analogy we must continue to attack, invade and occupy all the rest of the countries in the world that have "evil dictators" to save lives.

Comparing an unjust invasion and occupation (police action, nation building) to choosing a career in the U.S. is asinine.


It all depends if you believe that removing Saddam was necessary. I think there's a case to be made that it was.

And no, I don't think we should just invade every country that has an evil dicator in charge. But if one of them repeatedly invades his neighbors, uses poison gas on one of them as well as on his own people, is considered so dangerous by the UN that he is ordered to destroy his WMD, and then follows a pattern of lies, deception, and obstruction instead over the course of 12 years and 17 UN resolutions, it's time to consider removing such a thug from power. So far, no other dictator in the world has met this criteria.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So far, no other dictator in the world has met this criteria.
You're kidding, right?

[The Lone Bolt]

You're kidding, right?


OK, how many dictators can you name that:

A) Repeatedly invaded their neighbors,

B) Used poisonous gas (or other WMD) on their neighbors as well as their own people,

C) Was ordered to disarm of their WMD by the UN,

and

D) Failed to do so over 12 years and 17 resolutions (or a similar comparison of time and orders form the UN), and all the while followed a pattern of lies, obstruction, and deception regarding their WMD programs.



Can you name one dictator that has followed a similar pattern? Remember, I'm asking not about dicatators that simply "did bad things". I'm asking about dictators that fit a criteria like the one above that suggested that they were dangerous to their neighbors and to the world as a whole.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

OK, how many dictators can you name that:

A) Repeatedly invaded their neighbors, When did that happen last in Iraq?

B) Used poisonous gas (or other WMD) on their neighbors as well as their own people, When did that happen last in Iraq?

C) Was ordered to disarm of their WMD by the UN, When did that happen in Iraq?

and

D) Failed to do so over 12 years and 17 resolutions (or a similar comparison of time and orders form the UN), and all the while followed a pattern of lies, obstruction, and deception regarding their WMD programs. Sorry, I have some breaking news here, Iraq hasn't had any WMD since at least '95.


Can you name one dictator that has followed a similar pattern? Remember, I'm asking not about dicatators that simply "did bad things". I'm asking about dictators that fit a criteria like the one above that suggested that they were dangerous to their neighbors and to the world as a whole. Several in Africa that killed thousands if not millions of people. One in NK is threatening to launch missiles.

[defenseman]

The Bozo in NK really pisses me off, he picks opportune times to muck up the water...dman

[Rohirrim]

I say "No", but my reason is, judging by what goes on in American politics these days (and most of the threads in here), Americans should leave the rest of the world in peace and start shooting each other. ;D

[defenseman]

Bad, bad analogies!!!!! You'll have do better than this.

Fighting Bush's personal grudge match in Iraq has nothing to do with police, firefighting or becoming a doctor in our country. Using your analogy we must continue to attack, invade and occupy all the rest of the countries in the world that have "evil dictators" to save lives.

Comparing an unjust invasion and occupation (police action, nation building) to choosing a career in the U.S. is asinine.

It's a war, not a grudgematch. In your eyes it's unjust, in others it's not. Strictly your point of view. The analogies given are interesting, at a minumum makes one ponder, but, to toss without regard would not be the right approach..dman

[defenseman]

I say "No", but my reason is, judging by what goes on in American politics these days (and most of the threads in here), Americans should leave the rest of the world in peace and start shooting each other. ;D

Nah, too much cleanup afterwords.....I'd rather messy someone else's "house" myself..dman

[The Lone Bolt]

When did that happen last in Iraq?
When did that happen last in Iraq?
When did that happen in Iraq?
Sorry, I have some breaking news here, Iraq hasn't had any WMD since at least '95.

Several in Africa that killed thousands if not millions of people. One in NK is threatening to launch missiles.


You're kidding here, right? Do you ever read the newspapers?

But to answer your questions:

When did that happen last in Iraq?

Kuwait, before the sanctions and inspections regime. Without the containment policy, there is every reason the Saddam would have continued to attack his neighbors. And as I have been trying to point out in another thread, the containment policy was at an end. How long until he went back to invading and forcably annexing his neighbors? His history suggests not long.


When did that happen in Iraq?

Halabja of course. And when the containment policy collapsed, as it was about to, he would have been able to rebuild his WMD programs and try it again. Once again I refer you to Ken Pollack's The Threatening Storm, specifically the chapter entitled "The Erosion of Containment."

Sorry, I have some breaking news here, Iraq hasn't had any WMD since at least '95.

He was caught repeatedly lying about his WMD programs and had failed to prove to the satisfaction of the UN Security Council (NOT the Bush administration) that he had disarmed. Should we have just taken his word for it that all the WMD had been disposed of?


Several in Africa that killed thousands if not millions of people. One in NK is threatening to launch missiles.

This doesn't even come close to Saddam's record and you know it.

[Spider]

:

You are against crime right? So why haven't you joined the police force?
joined a community crime watch , look out for my nieghbors ......

You're against fires, right? So why haven't you joined the fire department?
i have helped friends and their nieghbors in fire alley ( coal creek road ) fight fires every year .....

You're in favor of saving lives, right? So why aren't you in medical school? took a course in CPR , and in Infant CPR . do what I can .So as you can clearly see , you can do things where you live to help out , why cause I believe in these things ........ I suggest you come another rout .you just got your áss handed to you on this


To suggest that supporters of the war who haven't joined up to fight are hypocrites is unreasonable. Not all of us are cut out to be soldiers, although we could be if absolutely necessary. I support our troops and they have my greatest admiration and respect. Not everyone can do what they do.no it isnt ........i just showed you

[The Lone Bolt]

joined a community crime watch , look out for my nieghbors ......


i have helped friends and their nieghbors in fire alley ( coal creek road ) fight fires every year .....

took a course in CPR , and in Infant CPR . do what I can .So as you can clearly see , you can do things where you live to help out , why cause I believe in these things ........ I suggest you come another rout .you just got your áss handed to you on this


no it isnt ........i just showed you

Actually, you've not only did not "handed me my ass" on this, you actually made my point. "We do what we can" is exactly what I am saying. Not all of us can be soldiers except under extreme circumstances.

And BTW, kudos to you for your community involvement!:thumbsup:

[55CrushEm]

Sorry, I have some breaking news here, Iraq hasn't had any WMD since at least '95.

Finally!! Admission by the lefties that Clinton, therefore, must have lied too !! In 1998, when HE said they had WMD, which justified his attack.

Jeesh.....so many examples of hypocrisy....

[Spider]

Actually, you've not only did not "handed me my ass" on this, you actually made my point. "We do what we can" is exactly what I am saying. Not all of us can be soldiers except under extreme circumstances.

And BTW, kudos to you for your community involvement!:thumbsup:
thanks ...... in my line of work , it is hard to do the community watch thing , but my wife fills in for me , and CPR is a must , you come up on an accident , you can save someones life with CPR .... but my p[oint is , there is somthing you could be doing if you realy believe in this war , for example making sure supplies get there from your community , volunteer time at a VA , anything to help out in the cause you believe in .......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Finally!! Admission by the lefties that Clinton, therefore, must have lied too !! In 1998, when HE said they had WMD, which justified his attack.
Jeesh.....so many examples of hypocrisy.... Sorry, I don't camp on one side of the river or the other exclusively. But to address your "Clinton" reply, Bush had intelligence in hand and CIA reports that said the intel was faulty. That's why he didn't let the weapon inspectors finish because he knew their report would show no WMD in Iraq.

[The Lone Bolt]

thanks ...... in my line of work , it is hard to do the community watch thing , but my wife fills in for me , and CPR is a must , you come up on an accident , you can save someones life with CPR .... but my p[oint is , there is somthing you could be doing if you realy believe in this war , for example making sure supplies get there from your community , volunteer time at a VA , anything to help out in the cause you believe in .......

Absolutely. My problem is that I've been a grad student (M.A. counseling psychology) over the last few years. That means being VERY busy and very broke! But I certainly would like to do more when I have found work in my field and have time or funds to offer.

[Spider]

Absolutely. My problem is that I've been a grad student (M.A. counseling psychology) over the last few years. That means being VERY busy and very broke! But I certainly would like to do more when I have found work in my field and have time or funds to offer.
I graduated from the U .O. H.K . got a masters degree ..... wasnt easy

[55CrushEm]

Since we're spouting credentials......I'm a CPA and have an MBA from Babson College.

Congrats on your graduate degrees, gents.

[defenseman]

Sorry, I don't camp on one side of the river or the other exclusively. But to address your "Clinton" reply, Bush had intelligence in hand and CIA reports that said the intel was faulty. That's why he didn't let the weapon inspectors finish because he knew their report would show no WMD in Iraq.

That has not been conclusively proven. One can only assume. Intel 'might' have been available, that doesn't mean it got into his hands. Alot of folks need conclusive proof of this accusation before they'll buy in......dman

[defenseman]

I graduated from the U .O. H.K . got a masters degree ..... wasnt easy

University of hard knocks eh?....Too a degree, we've all attended that school, some more than others...dman

[Spider]

Since we're spouting credentials......I'm a CPA and have an MBA from Babson College.

Congrats on your graduate degrees, gents.
but you dont understand , U.O.H.K. is a special place , the degree is priceless

[The Lone Bolt]

Sorry, I don't camp on one side of the river or the other exclusively. But to address your "Clinton" reply, Bush had intelligence in hand and CIA reports that said the intel was faulty. That's why he didn't let the weapon inspectors finish because he knew their report would show no WMD in Iraq.


Another thing -- the UN was unable to prove that Saddam had disarmed over the course of 12 years. What make you think that they were going to accomplish proof of disarmament just in time to avoid an invasion?

I say 12 years and 17 UN resolutions is enough. Saddam had his chance to disarm and prove it. The system had its chance to produce results. It didn't work.

[Spider]

University of hard knocks eh?....Too a degree, we've all attended that school, some more than others...dman
LOL the harder the knock the more I learned ;D
spent 22 years in there , seems I am do for a refresher course ;D

[defenseman]

LOL the harder the knock the more I learned ;D
spent 22 years in there , seems I am do for a refresher course ;D

Yeah, occassionally all of us could use a refresher...dman

[freak6]

War should always be the last option... BUT, when it is that last option, we should bring down the HELLFIRE... Not play Patty-Cakes...

Good point, we went in soft, as far as boots on the ground, same mistake made in Tora Bora.

[freak6]

Another thing -- the UN was unable to prove that Saddam had disarmed over the course of 12 years. What make you think that they were going to accomplish proof of disarmament just in time to avoid an invasion?



lmao, david kay had already said there were no WMD's, it was only the administration that kept saying "we know where the are" even though the weapons inspectors went to those sites, and found nothing. In other words...

CHENEY, RUMMY, BUSH , ALL LIED US INTO WAR.

Google Rise of the Vulcans.
Or just click here for knowledge.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronagon.html

Three weeks before the invasion of Iraq is to begin, Gen. Shinseki is forced to take his internal fight with Rumsfeld public in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Responding to a question from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) about the size of the force required for an occupation of Iraq, Shinseki responds:


I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz respond with public rebukes of Shinseki. Rumsfeld calls Shinseki's estimates "far from the mark," and Wolfowitz comments two days later in testimony before the House Budget Committee, "First, it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine," he said. Wolfowitz also argues that the Kurdish northern third of Iraq had been liberated from Saddam after the Gulf War and that the area had stayed relatively stable without the presence of U.S. troops.

[bendog]

Another thing -- the UN was unable to prove that Saddam had disarmed over the course of 12 years. What make you think that they were going to accomplish proof of disarmament just in time to avoid an invasion?

I say 12 years and 17 UN resolutions is enough. Saddam had his chance to disarm and prove it. The system had its chance to produce results. It didn't work.
Well, it was working according to blix, up until he left cause he didn't want bush to bomb him too.

But, again, to argue there was womd just makes one look a fool. Either bushii lied or he was an idiot, or both. Doesn't it put him in a better light to argue that nation building is the right thing to do to get rid of the underlying issues that make bin laden's message appealing to arab-muslims?

[The Lone Bolt]

lmao, david kay had already said there were no WMD's, it was only the administration that kept saying "we know where the are" even though the weapons inspectors went to those sites, and found nothing. In other words...

CHENEY, RUMMY, BUSH , ALL LIED US INTO WAR.


If it had been proven beyond all doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion, why didn't the UN lift sanctions and declare Iraq in full compliance of UN resolutions?

[55CrushEm]

If it had been proven beyond all doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion, why didn't the UN lift sanctions and declare Iraq in full compliance of UN resolutions?

Seems like a logical question......freak? Oh wait, that's crickets I hear chirping.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well, it was working according to blix, up until he left cause he didn't want bush to bomb him too.

But, again, to argue there was womd just makes one look a fool. Either bushii lied or he was an idiot, or both. Doesn't it put him in a better light to argue that nation building is the right thing to do to get rid of the underlying issues that make bin laden's message appealing to arab-muslims?


I'm not arguing that there were WMD in Iraq. I'm arguing that it had not been proven to the satisfaction of the UN security council that Saddam had disarmed of his WMD over the course of 12 years. Given his history of lies, deception, and obstruction, should we have just taken Saddam's word for it that he destroyed the WMD? What evidence is there to suggest that Blix was on the verge of declaring Iraq in full compliance with UN resolutions? Given that blixii was hand-picked by Saddam, should his word have been taken seriously? What about all of the reports of nuclear and bio-weapons programs being run under the weapons inspectors noses (e.g. Khadir Hamza, Hussien Kamal)?

[defenseman]

I'm not arguing that there were WMD in Iraq. I'm arguing that it had not been proven to the satisfaction of the UN security council that Saddam had disarmed of his WMD over the course of 12 years. Given his history of lies, deception, and obstruction, should we have just taken Saddam's word for it that he destroyed the WMD? What evidence is there to suggest that Blix was on the verge of declaring Iraq in full compliance with UN resolutions? Given that blixii was hand-picked by Saddam, should his word have been taken seriously? What about all of the reports of nuclear and bio-weapons programs being run under the weapons inspectors noses (e.g. Khadir Hamza, Hussien Kamal)?

A little selective "learning" going on here it appears...dman

[defenseman]

Seems like a logical question......freak? Oh wait, that's crickets I hear chirping.

LOL @ 55..dman

[freak6]

Im busy working.

David Kay was there. No reason to invade without the WMDs being there. Where are they.

Rummy -"we know where they are"

[freak6]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

[bendog]

I'm not arguing that there were WMD in Iraq. I'm arguing that it had not been proven to the satisfaction of the UN security council that Saddam had disarmed of his WMD over the course of 12 years. Given his history of lies, deception, and obstruction, should we have just taken Saddam's word for it that he destroyed the WMD? What evidence is there to suggest that Blix was on the verge of declaring Iraq in full compliance with UN resolutions? Given that blixii was hand-picked by Saddam, should his word have been taken seriously? What about all of the reports of nuclear and bio-weapons programs being run under the weapons inspectors noses (e.g. Khadir Hamza, Hussien Kamal)?
Because to be in compliance, saddam's govt/scientists had to account for the chemical precursors, and that still hasn't happened. Never will. Compliance was and is an impossibility.

And per Blix, never let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2268819.stm

[The Lone Bolt]

Im busy working.

David Kay was there. No reason to invade without the WMDs being there. Where are they?


Once again, how the f-ck were we supposed to know that there were no WMD?

[bendog]

Once again, how the f-ck were we supposed to know that there were no WMD?
Dude, YOU'RE ARGING THAT BLIX HAD A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WAS GOING ON THAN BUSH AHD THE CIA. Do you really wanna stick with that story?

[The Lone Bolt]

Because to be in compliance, saddam's govt/scientists had to account for the chemical precursors, and that still hasn't happened. Never will. Compliance was and is an impossibility.



So if compliance was an impossibility, why didn't the UN use that as a logical reason to end the sanctions and declare that the Iraqis were in de-facto compliance because anything further was impossible to prove?

[The Lone Bolt]

Dude, YOU'RE ARGING THAT BLIX HAD A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WAS GOING ON THAN BUSH AHD THE CIA. Do you really wanna stick with that story?

I still haven't seen your evidence that blixii had declared Iraq in full comlpliance (as much as possible) before the start of the war.

[55CrushEm]

Im busy working.

Translation: Oh sh1t...that question makes sense. Guess I better deflect.

[bendog]

Translation: Oh sh1t...that question makes sense. Guess I better deflect.
I of course don't track your insistence that an effectual swiss (or belgium) intl lawyer had a better intell than the cia, but the answer's been given. Saddam couldn't be incompliance until they told where the precursors are ... and Kay concluded they couldn't tell, cause nobody knows.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'
Feb. 20, 2003

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2003/02/20/image541399x.jpg
So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage."
http://tinyurl.com/66w9

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that inspectors still have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein has revived his nuclear program.
http://tinyurl.com/4ab5m

Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter

RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq.

Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so ``... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.

War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute.
http://tinyurl.com/qbnj2

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons
Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
http://tinyurl.com/4ndd7

[The Lone Bolt]

Once again, I'm still waiting for an answer: Why didn't the UN declare Iraq in full compliance? If any further evidence of compliance was "impossible", why didn't the UN take this into account and declare de facto full compliance? The above articles do nothing to answer my questions.

[bendog]

ahh, maybe because Iraq wasn't in compliance... whayyathy think? btw, where are the womd bush said were there?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Once again, I'm still waiting for an answer: Why didn't the UN declare Iraq in full compliance? If any further evidence of compliance was "impossible", why didn't the UN take this into account and declare de facto full compliance? The above articles do nothing to answer my questions.
They probably would have if Bush didn't kick them out to start his invasion and police action of Iraq.

[The Lone Bolt]

ahh, maybe because Iraq wasn't in compliance... whayyathy think? btw, where are the womd bush said were there?

Iraq might not have been. It's easy to say in hindsight that they had no WMD, but at the time the UN obviously found no logical reason to delcare them in compliance no matter what Scott Ritter says. So who's word should I have been taking at the time: Scott Ritter's or the entire UN Security Council's????

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If the country absolutely NEEDED me to serve...

"If?"

You need to turn off Rehab Rush and pick up a newspaper once and awhile.

(Not that it will do any good - you'll just go on being a yellow republican chickenhawk who sits behind a computer attacking the patriotism of those who oppose BushCo's policies while failing to demonstrate the courage of your convictions by volunteering to fight in a war you claim is just, necessary, and vital to your country's security and interests.)


....but LABF and you other communists apparently need to be reminded that this is a volunteer military....

I volunteered as soon as I was old enough to sign up. What's your excuse?

BTW, do you even understand such fundamentals of political science as the difference between communism and liberalism?

I'll bet you can't explain the difference to save your life w/o doing a Google search.

[The Lone Bolt]

They probably would have if Bush didn't kick them out to start his invasion and police action of Iraq.


But you don't know this, right?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's easy to say in hindsight that they had no WMD, but at the time the UN obviously found no logical reason to delcare them in compliance no matter what Scott Ritter says.

:bs:

Just the opposite is true.

The UN inspectors said that they were allowed total access to every site and every location they wanted to search. They said they only needed two more weeks to finish their work, but AWOL Boy couldn't wait that long. We know why now, don't we? If the inspectors had been allowed to confirm what we know now, i.e., that Iraq had no WMD, then BushCo wouldn't have been able to have its war.

[bendog]

They probably would have if Bush didn't kick them out to start his invasion and police action of Iraq.
I disagree. To be in compliance, Iraq had to document what it did with the precursors. Kay concluded most likely they were dumped with no documentaiton, cause nobody wanted to take responsibility with Saddam. That's why this whole story is merely another disengenious (lie) by the bushies here. The issue isn't Iraq's compliance. The issue is whether bushii could reasonably have just made a mistake on Iraq being a threat in Feb of 2002. If we had wars with every country that reneged on some security deal, we'd be dead cause we'd have six billion more enemies. I tried to pose the question to these bushies as to whether they really wanted to post that blix was better at threat assessment than their potus. Of course, they'll pass on that.

I still think nation building could be a legit reason to do this. However, I really don't think the US has the troops or the capacity for brutality that ruling Iraq requires. That is, we can take out 10K civilians in a week, and barely bat an eye. But to basically skin or burn someone slowly to death just to make a point about what non-compliance to our occupation will cause ... just not our "style." And, ultimately, I doubt the Iraqi coalition govt will hold.

[The Lone Bolt]

:bs:

Just the opposite is true.

The UN inspectors said that they were allowed total access to every site and every location they wanted to search. They said they only needed two more weeks to finish their work, but AWOL Boy couldn't wait that long. We know why now, don't we? If the inspectors had been allowed to confirm what we know now, i.e., that Iraq had no WMD, then BushCo wouldn't have been able to have its war.

Do you have evidence that the weapons inspectors were going to declare Iraq in full compliance within two weeks if we had not invaded?

[bendog]

I think bolt thinks he's found a bone buried in his yard lol

[The Lone Bolt]

I disagree. To be in compliance, Iraq had to document what it did with the precursors. Kay concluded most likely they were dumped with no documentaiton, cause nobody wanted to take responsibility with Saddam. That's why this whole story is merely another disengenious (lie) by the bushies here. The issue isn't Iraq's compliance. The issue is whether bushii could reasonably have just made a mistake on Iraq being a threat in Feb of 2002. If we had wars with every country that reneged on some security deal, we'd be dead cause we'd have six billion more enemies. I tried to pose the question to these bushies as to whether they really wanted to post that blix was better at threat assessment than their potus. Of course, they'll pass on that.

I still think nation building could be a legit reason to do this. However, I really don't think the US has the troops or the capacity for brutality that ruling Iraq requires. That is, we can take out 10K civilians in a week, and barely bat an eye. But to basically skin or burn someone slowly to death just to make a point about what non-compliance to our occupation will cause ... just not our "style." And, ultimately, I doubt the Iraqi coalition govt will hold.

Well, I hope your wrong. I think we all wish the best for the people of Iraq no matter what our opinions of the invasion are.

I really think that the issue is what the UN believed re: compliance. Had they declared full compliance I would have opposed the invasion. Had they even said "hey, 90% compliance is good enough" I would have taken it under consideration. But they said neither of those things.

[55CrushEm]

I volunteered as soon as I was old enough to sign up. What's your excuse?


If you read all my posts, you'd know.....:welcome:

[bendog]

bushii obviously didn't give a crap waht the UN thought, so I'm not sure why you would be. Personally, IF a potus really thought there was an immient danger, he should attack regardless of the UN. But the real question is what Bushii rationally could have thought.

I don't wish the best for the people who tortured the two soldiers. I'll pray for them, but I doubt they'll be anything more than psychopathic thugs.

[The Lone Bolt]

bushii obviously didn't give a crap waht the UN thought, so I'm not sure why you would be. Personally, IF a potus really thought there was an immient danger, he should attack regardless of the UN. But the real question is what Bushii rationally could have thought.

I don't wish the best for the people who tortured the two soldiers. I'll pray for them, but I doubt they'll be anything more than psychopathic thugs.


I think the opnion of the UN Security Council is very important to this debate. Your position is that Iraq had been for all practical purposes disarmed. If that's true, why didn't the UN think so? It undermines your argument.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do you have evidence that the weapons inspectors were going to declare Iraq in full compliance within two weeks if we had not invaded?

You missed my point.

The point is, if the inspectors had been allowed the two weeks they needed to finish their work, then we would have known what we know now, viz., that Iraq had no WMD.

But AWOL Boy couldn't let that happen, could he?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think the opnion of the UN Security Council is very important to this debate. your position is that Iraq had been for all practical purposes disarmed. If that's true, why didn't the UN think so? It undermines your argument.

Who said the UN didn't think so?

The UN said it only needed two more weeks to finish its inspections of all sites.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It undermines your argument.

The following not only undermines your argument - it destroys it:

PILGER FILM REVEALS COLIN POWELL SAID IRAQ WAS NO THREAT

EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."

Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity.

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099

[The Lone Bolt]

You missed my point.

The point is, if the inspectors had been allowed the two weeks they needed to finish their work, then we would have known what we know now, viz., that Iraq had no WMD.

But AWOL Boy couldn't let that happen, could he?

How do you know that? How do you know for certain that they would have declared Iraq in full compliance? Maybe they would have just said " well, we still haven't found anything but we can't prove that Iraq is in compliance. We still haven't been able to account for the missing WMD and/or precursors. Let's just keep looking for another 12 years."

They had 12 YEARSof weapons inspections. What makes you think that they would have reached a new conclusion after all of that time?

[The Lone Bolt]

The following not only undermines your argument - it destroys it:

PILGER FILM REVEALS COLIN POWELL SAID IRAQ WAS NO THREAT

EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."

Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity.

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099

You've hauled out these quotes before. If Iraq was "effectively disarmed", why didn't the UN Security Council reach that conclusion and lift sanctions?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How do you know that? How do you know for certain that they would have declared Iraq in full compliance?

Because they would have been able to confirm what we know now, i.e., no WMD.

Maybe they would have just said " well, we still haven't found anything but we can't prove that Iraq is in compliance.

:laugh:

"Maybe?" In other words, pure speculation.

Meanwhile, we know now that Iraq had no WMD.

At any rate, your argument reminds me of Bush's tasteless gag where he pretended to search for WMD under the furniture, etc.

Your argument is one that allows you to keep moving the goal post indefinitely, i.e., "well, maybe we just haven't found the weapons yet - maybe Saddam moved them to Pluto when we weren't looking."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You've hauled out these quotes before. If Iraq was "effectively disarmed", why didn't the UN Security Council reach that conclusion and lift sanctions?

So you're claiming that Powell and Rice were lying in these interviews?

Or are you claiming that they were misinformed?

Either way, you're suggesting that they are either corrupt or incompetent.

[The Lone Bolt]

Because they would have been able to confirm what we know now, i.e., no WMD.



:laugh:

"Maybe?" In other words, pure speculation.

Meanwhile, we know now that Iraq had no WMD.

At any rate, your argument reminds me of Bush's tasteless gag where he pretended to search for WMD under the furniture, etc.

Your argument is one that allows you to keep moving the goal post indefinitely, i.e., "well, maybe we just haven't found the weapons yet - maybe Saddam moved them to Pluto when we weren't looking."

your argument is also speculation. We had weapons inspections for 12 years that proved nothing, and yet you were expecting a different result in those two weeks? Why? Was it Saddam's sudden "cooperation?" If you knew anything at all about the history of the weapons inspections, you would know that Saddam cooperated intermittantly -- whenever the UN started to sound as if they might take some real action against him for non-compliance Saddam would cooperate temporarily, until the UN chilled out, and then he would go back to blocking the weapons inspections and throwing weapons inspectors out of his country. His latest round of sudden "cooperation" was worthless in that context.

I would not at all "move the goal posts indefinitely." If the UN Security Council had declared Iraq in full compliance that would have been good enough for me. But after 12 years of weapons inspections it's really unlikely that in those two weeks the UN would suddenly declare Iraq in compliance. You can't know that the weapons inspectors would have "known" what we know now, because you can't be sure they would have found indesputable proof of disarmament.

[Saddletramp]

couldn't vote. Not enough yes options. I support our troops and our President. Regardless. And, I am not a dumbass American. Just a dumbass when it comes to women.

[The Lone Bolt]

So you're claiming that Powell and Rice were lying in these interviews?

Or are you claiming that they were misinformed?

Either way, you're suggesting that they are either corrupt or incompetent.

Maybe they are. Doesn't change the fact that the UN Security Council didn't think that Iraq was effectively disarmed, and it's their opion that matters most on this subject. They are the body responsible for declaring compliance, not Powell, Rice, Bush, Cheney, Ritter, Blix, Rummy, Cindy Sheehan, my uncle Fred, or anyone else.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Doesn't change the fact that the UN Security Council didn't think that Iraq was effectively disarmed...

The UN Security Council wasn't allowed to finish the inspections because AWOL Boy was in a big hurry to rush America into war, so the Council's final word was pre-empted by BushCo.

...and it's their opion that matters most on this subject...

:laugh:

That's funny - during the run-up to the war, people like you were arguing just the opposite: "screw the UN - we don't need the UN's approval when it comes to decisions like invading Iraq."

The anti-UN sentiment coming from the right-wingers was off the charts.

Apparently, you simply appeal to the authority and the infallibility of the UN when it's convenient.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...the UN Security Council didn't think that Iraq was effectively disarmed, and it's their opion that matters most on this subject.

Then why didn't BushCo defer to the Council when the inspectors said they only needed two more weeks to finish their work?

Just the opposite happened: BushCo said "screw the UN - we're going in now."

You are clearly contradicting yourself here.

[The Lone Bolt]

Then why didn't BushCo defer to the Council when the inspectors said they only needed two more weeks to finish their work?

Just the opposite happened: BushCo said "screw the UN - we're going in now."

You are clearly contradicting yourself here.

Once again your whole argument rests on the unproven assumption that they would have declared Iraq in full compliance after those two weeks. You have no evidence that they would have.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Once again your whole argument rests on the unproven assumption that they would have declared Iraq in full compliance after those two weeks. You have no evidence that they would have.

But you just claimed that the UN was the final authority when it came making such a declaration (apparently oblivious to the fact that you contradict yourself when you support Bush's decision to pre-empt the inspectors and to rush America into war.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/56/5406/2006-06-21.asp?nid=5406&wid=56&pv=1

War Apologists Still Unapologetic

By Ilana Mercer
Wednesday, June 21, 2006

In a letter to in response to Tibor Machan’s “Iraqi War Blues,” Lawrence Auster writes rather impatiently:

“For the ten thousandth time, the whole world, including those opposing the war, believed Iraq had WMDs, and there was ample reason for that belief.”

This is absolutely false. As someone who was on top of every fallacy promoted by this administration from the onset (as of September 19, 2002, to be precise), and who has been proven right on each and every point, I refuse to countenance this Sean-Hannity inanity. It seems that those who were 100% wrong on the war want to, somehow, retain their credibility and pretend that those of us who got it 100% right, did so by coincidence.

Not if I can help it.

There were many experts—credible ones—who absolutely rejected the contention that there were WMD in Iraq. They were as numerous as the loud voices who promoted this lie. However, the media—the Hannities, the Millers, the dissidents, their handlers, and their followers—shut them, and us, out.

In “What WMD?,” I wrote that, in his attempt to find the “missing weapons,” David Kay—a former top U.S. weapons inspector who endeared himself to the media as an invasion enthusiast—had done no more than validate some very old verities. No, not everyone was bullish about the Bush administration’s WMD balderdash:

“What Kay now parrots,” I averred, “the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council before the war: There were no nuclear-designated aluminum tubes in Iraq; no uranium was imported, and no nuclear programs were in existence. Between 1991 and 1998, the IAEA had managed to strip Iraq of its fuel-enriching facilities, tallying inventories to a T. Or in Kay’s belated words: ‘Iraq’s large-scale capability to produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced – if not entirely destroyed – during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections.’”

“According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Congress in 1999 was privy to intelligence reports which similarly attested to a lack of ‘any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox (1998) to reconstitute its WMD program …’ Accounts of this nature have evidently been available to Congress for years. They reiterated, as one report from the Defense Intelligence Agency does, that, ‘A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were [sic] destroyed between 1991 and 1998.’”

“Kay’s ‘news’ ought not to have been new to the blithering boobs in Congress,” I observed. “The CEIP further bears out that in October of 2002, Congress was apprised of a National Intelligence Estimate, a declassified version of which was released only after the war. Apparently, entire intelligence agencies disputed key contentions that the administration—its experts, and its congressional and media backers—seized on and ran with.”

“While clearly pandering to policy makers, U.S. intelligence reports were still heavily qualified by conjectural expressions such as, ‘we believe Iraq could, might, possibly, and probably will...’ The State Department and the White House, however, cultivated a custom of issuing ‘fact’ sheets with definitive statements from which all traces of uncertainty had been removed.”

“Condoleezza Rice (who had categorically denied she possessed the analytical wherewithal to connect the dazzlingly close dots between Arab men practicing their aeronautical take-off skills and terrorism) was suddenly doing nothing but connecting disparate dots. She, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush never stopped gabbling about a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear-weapons program, chemical and biological blights, Scuds and squadrons of unmanned aerial vehicles streaking U.S. skies, and traveling laboratories teeming with twisted scientists. The language they used… ignored the deep dissent in the intelligence community.”

All that information addressing pre-war knowledge was culled from my column, “What WMD?”

Coalesced in “Ink Stains and Blood Stains” is information I had given my readers in 2003-columns such as “Bush’s 16 words miss the Big Picture” and “High Crimes vs. Hillary & Her husband,” among others. In “Bush’s 16 Words Miss the Big Picture,” I beseeched readers to somehow show an ability to “…see Bush’s sub-intelligent case for war for what it was”:

“The administration’s war wasn’t about a few pieces that did not gel in an otherwise coherent framework, it wasn’t about an Iraq that was poised to attack the U.S. with germs and chemicals rather than with nukes; it was about a resigned, hungry, economic pariah that was a sitting duck for the power-hungry American colossus.

“By all means,” I implored, “dissect and analyze what, in September 2002, I called the ‘lattice of lies’ leveled at Iraq: the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes from Timbuktu, the invisible ‘meetings’ with al-Qaida in Prague, an al-Qaida training camp that existed under Kurdish—not Iraqi—control, as well as the alleged weaponized chemical and biological stockpiles and their attendant delivery systems that inspectors doubted were there and which never materialized.”

“But then assemble the pieces and synthesize the information, will you?”

In “Rationalize With Lies” I dealt a blow to the Hannity inanity Mr. Auster now advances, namely the “creative post-hocarguments … made to justify the unnecessary war the United States waged on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us, was no threat to us and was certainly no match for us.” The argument resembles the one my FMNN-colleague Tibor Machan has made here recently. I wrote:

“To say that Saddam may have had WMD is quite different from advocating war based on those assumptions. It’s one thing to assume in error; it’s quite another to launch a war in which thousands would die based on mere assumptions, however widely shared. It was not the anti-war-on-Iraq camp that intended to launch a war based on the sketchy information it had. The crucial difference between the Bush camp and its opponents lies in the actions the former took.”

“Second, it matters a great deal when during the last decade someone said Saddam was in possession of impermissible weapons. To have said so in 1991 is not the same as saying so in 2003, by which time Iraq had so obviously been cowed into compliance and was crawling with inspectors.”

“Naturally, at certain times during Iraq’s belligerent history, opponents of this war would have agreed he had a weapons program. But by 1998, sensible people realized that Operation Desert Storm, followed by seven years of inspections, made the possibility of reconstituting such a program remote. The Defense Intelligence Agency reached the same conclusion in September 2002, writing that, “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998.” President Jacques Chirac said as much to both Bush and Blair, who pretended not to hear.”

I (and many of my fellow libertarians) was right all along because I am not a partisan who genuflects to Our Side. To arrive at the correct conclusions about Bush’s undeniable drive to war, I employed facts and reality, “the Jewish teachings, which instruct Jews to robustly and actively seek justice, "Just War Theory," developed by great Christian minds like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the libertarian axiom, which prohibits aggression against non-aggressors, the natural law, and what the Founding Fathers provided”:

“A limited, constitutional republican government, by definition,” I wrote in March 12, 2003, “doesn’t, cannot, and must never pursue what Bush is after…a sort of 21st-century Manifest Destiny.”

I was right because, like many of the silenced, I adhered to reality and followed immutably correct intellectual and moral principles. I’ll be damned if I allow anyone to deflect from the intellectual and moral corruption of those who failed to do the same.

[Spider]

If it had been proven beyond all doubt that there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion, why didn't the UN lift sanctions and declare Iraq in full compliance of UN resolutions?
there was talk of lifting Sanctions , oil for food was the first one , but as par for the course , you are wrong again . The UK and US refused to lift sactions on Iraq as long as Saddam was in power , had nothing to do with WMD ......

[The Lone Bolt]

But you just claimed that the UN was the final authority when it came making such a declaration (apparently oblivious to the fact that you contradict yourself when you support Bush's decision to pre-empt the inspectors and to rush America into war.)


Sure, if Bush had given the weapons inspectors two more weeks and they concluded that Iraq had disarmed and the UN Security Council declared as a result that Iraq was in full compliance I would have accepted it. But what if they hadn't? What if the weapons inspectors came out after two weeks and said that their findings were inconclusive. Would you have OK'ed an invasion? If not, wouldn't you be the one "moving the goal posts?"

Once again, there were weapons inspections for 12 years and no declaration of compliance. There was no reason to believe that two more weeks would have produced such a declaration. And if in fact they didn't, it would have made no difference at all to the opponents of the war, who would have just insisted that we need more inspections. Do you think it would have been possible to inspect Iraq forever?

[The Lone Bolt]

there was talk of lifting Sanctions , oil for food was the first one , but as par for the course , you are wrong again . The UK and US refused to lift sactions on Iraq as long as Saddam was in power , had nothing to do with WMD ......


Were the US and UK the only members on the Security Council opposed to lifting the sanctions completely?

[Spider]

Were the US and UK the only members on the Security Council opposed to lifting the sanctions completely?
dont know , but I know the veto power would have been wielded by the US and UK 1 veto was enough ....... But it had nothing to do with WMD ..... it was Saddam himself .........
but thinking back , I was all on the lets invade Iran , i was unloading today @ C&Y trans , and a driver asked me , when was the last time Iran attacked somebody ?
I dont have the answer .....

[The Lone Bolt]

dont know , but I know the veto power would have been wielded by the US and UK 1 veto was enough ....... But it had nothing to do with WMD ..... it was Saddam himself .........
but thinking back , I was all on the lets invade Iran , i was unloading today @ C&Y trans , and a driver asked me , when was the last time Iran attacked somebody ?
I dont have the answer .....

I am certainly opposed to attacking Iran. I don't like the Mullahs either but they have not demonstrated Saddam's reckless aggression so I don't seem them as enough of a threat to justify military action.

I'm out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sure, if Bush had given the weapons inspectors two more weeks and they concluded that Iraq had disarmed and the UN Security Council declared as a result that Iraq was in full compliance I would have accepted it. But what if they hadn't?

You're simply playing a game of "what ifs" instead of addressing the facts as they stand.

Fact: The "evidence" BushCo used to support its claims than Iraq had WMD was manipulated, distorted, cherry-picked, and fraudulent.

Further, you claim on the one hand that the UN Security Council should have the final word re: declarations of compliance, yet you supported the pre-emption of the council's final word by BushCo on the other.

Once again, there were weapons inspections for 12 years and no declaration of compliance.

No declaration of compliance does not = positive evidence that Iraq possessed WMD (let alone evidence that would support all of the wild, irresponsible, and fraudulent claims made by BushCo in the selling of the war.)

[The Lone Bolt]

You're simply playing a game of "what ifs" instead of addressing the facts as they stand.

Fact: The "evidence" BushCo used to support its claims than Iraq had WMD was manipulated, distorted, cherry-picked, and fraudulent.

Further, you claim on the one hand that the UN Security Council should have the final word re: declarations of compliance, yet you supported the pre-emption of the council's final word by BushCo on the other.

So are you: "what if the weapons inspectors had declared Iraq disarmed and the UN Security Council lifted sanctions." You claim to know for a fact they would have but have no evidence to prove it.

I don't necessarily support not giving the inspections another couple of weeks, I just don't believe it would have made a difference. I have a hard time believing that after 12 years of inspections they would have resolved the whole issue suddenly in two weeks. It's a real stretch.



No declaration of compliance does not = positive evidence that Iraq possessed WMD (let alone evidence that would support all of the wild, irresponsible, and fraudulent claims made by BushCo in the selling of the war.)

But no declaration of compliance does = no disarmament in the opinion of the UN Security Council, the body responsible for making this declaration. Saddam was required to prove that he had disposed of his WMD. It was NOT the responsibilty of the UN or the weapons inspectors to prove that he hadn't.

[Spider]

I am certainly opposed to attacking Iran. I don't like the Mullahs either but they have not demonstrated Saddam's reckless aggression so I don't seem them as enough of a threat to justify military action.

I'm out.
well i looked it up .... Iran has been attacked by everyone otoman empire , Germans , Iraq , etc, but Iran has never attacked ...... but the part that I cant get past is the threat on Israel ...... you cant make threats like that when you are a leader of a country .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So are you: "what if the weapons inspectors had declared Iraq disarmed and the UN Security Council lifted sanctions." You claim to know for a fact they would have but have no evidence to prove it.

Wrong. I didn't claim to "know for a fact" what the security council would do.

What I do claim to know for a fact is that Bush's so-called pre-war "evidence" that Iraq had WMD was bogus.

But no declaration of compliance does = no disarmament in the opinion of the UN Security Council, the body responsible for making this declaration. Saddam was required to prove that he had disposed of his WMD. It was NOT the responsibilty of the UN or the weapons inspectors to prove that he hadn't.

Your argument boils down to the following:

Bush was justified in invading Iraq because we don't know whether the UN Security Council, given the additional time the inspectors requested, would have declared that Iraq had disarmed or not.

See the fallacy yet?

[Edskins_RVA]

Considering all the hyperbole that flies around here concerning Bush and his reasons for war with Iraq, I decided to go back and research this again for my own knowledge. I found a good example of what Bush was saying during the lead-up to the war. Here are selected segments of the speech pertaining to outlining the threat of Saddam's regime and the reasons why he needed to be confronted...


President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Iraq's history of aggression, desire for WMD, and support of terrorism are cited as the primary reasons for confronting Iraq..


First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

Again, the threat of an unrestrained regime like Saddam's is the ultimate reason for confrontation. WMD is not really a threat in the hands of free democratic nations. It certainly was/is in the hands of sociopathic dictators like Saddam.

It can be argued that we had him "contained", which limited the threat. But I ask how long was that going to last? There was a huge push to lift the sanctions on and end the inspections of Iraq prior to 2003. If that had been allowed, what was going to stop Saddam from living up to this fearsome scenario?



And that [WMD and the nature of the regime] is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Saddam's past and future links to terrorism are clearly stated as a significant aspect of the threat..


Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Clearly stating his point that fighting terrorism is about more than just "getting Bin Laden"...


Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.


Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.


The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

Clearly stating what Saddam had to do to diffuse the situation. He was unwilling to act.. Bush was willing to apply consequences for that decision..


There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

The ripple effect of not acting...


Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

And he gets to his points about providing a better future for Iraq, which improves American security and provides a foothold of change in a region that badly needs it..


The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

His principled statement of why he felt he needed to act..

Feel free to rip apart! :D

I just wanted everyone to see Bush's own words concerning the perceived threat of Iraq, since everyone seems to like their own revised history.. This is an example of what he was saying in the lead up to the war. It clearly emphasizes WMD, but also puts it in context and provides the other reasons for acting.. Not quite a simplistic and many around here make it out to be..

My $2.75... ;)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

[gunns]

The pride of your unit, no doubt......:oyvey:

For someone currently in the military....I've never heard ANYONE badmouth the Commander-in-chief as badly as you....not even soldiers under that imbecile Clinton.....

You're a disgrace......

And keep waving your enlisted credentials in front of me.....not impressed. My brother is a Major in the Air Force.....try getting a college education before you try to convince others how smart you are....

Then you haven't heard my son and brother bad mouth Bush. Both are in the Air Force, my brother has been in Iraq and my son is going. You also haven't heard the other guys in their troops, most of which have been in Iraq. My father was a Major also in the Air Force and he bad mouths Bush. He didn't like Clinton for avoiding the draft but thinks Bush is worse for getting Daddy to help him avoid Vietnam and pretend like he contributed anything to the military or this country.

Not too many people are left who can't find a multitude of issues to bad mouth him about. You're a rarity 55, thank God.

[Blueflame]

The reason I'd answer the question with a resounding "NO" is not listed among the poll choices. Not one of the myriad, ever-changing rationales this administration has fabricated for attacking Iraq has proven to be anything but a bald-faced lie. Plus, the diversion of many of our forces into Iraq effectively allowed Bin Laden to escape. We needed to finish that job before taking off on a tangent after another "bad guy"...

[BroncoBuff]

Watch FRONTLINE this week. It answers all your questions, and clears up
any shred of nagging doubt: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

'Nuff said.


.

[Edskins_RVA]

The reason I'd answer the question with a resounding "NO" is not listed among the poll choices. Not one of the myriad, ever-changing rationales this administration has fabricated for attacking Iraq has proven to be anything but a bald-faced lie. Plus, the diversion of many of our forces into Iraq effectively allowed Bin Laden to escape. We needed to finish that job before taking off on a tangent after another "bad guy"...
You mind going back and looking at the Bush speech I posted and let me know what "ever-changing rationales" have been used that were NOT included in his pre-war speech? Maybe you guys just missed all the original rationales due to the narrow lenses of your glasses.. WMD was emphasized, but was not the only reason..

By the way, seems like we have found some of the WMD Saddam was supposed to destroy and lied about.. I know, I know! I'm sure the parameters of "WMD" are about to change now due to inconvenient facts... ;D

[55CrushEm]

Then you haven't heard my son and brother bad mouth Bush. Both are in the Air Force, my brother has been in Iraq and my son is going. You also haven't heard the other guys in their troops, most of which have been in Iraq. My father was a Major also in the Air Force and he bad mouths Bush. He didn't like Clinton for avoiding the draft but thinks Bush is worse for getting Daddy to help him avoid Vietnam and pretend like he contributed anything to the military or this country.

First, therein lies the difference between your father and Gangsta....your father is clearly not a hypocrite.....make no mistake, don't misconstrue any of my comments as a "liking" for Bush....I come from a family of staunch conservatives....this is precisely why we DON'T like Bush.....neither he nor his father are remotely conservative. That's why it makes me laugh when the loony left says he is a "right wing neo-con".....nothing could be further from the truth. He's just not quite as liberal as John Kerry is. Therefore, I voted for him while holding my nose.

The Big Things:
He supports illegal immigration.
He supports big government....and thus spends more than a druken liberal....
His tax cuts were too small.
He's being too soft on North Korea (not enforcing the sanctions enough, etc.)
I could go on....

The Small Thing (which histerically, are the ones the libs think are the WORST)
He is a pi$$-poor public speaker, and comes across as not too bright....but the funny thing is he had better grades in college than John Kerry...I'll try to find the article from the Boston Globe that posted Kerry's transcript.

Second, comments like Bush "dodging" the draft are so hypocritical out of the libs mouths when they defended Clinton's draft dodging, saying that military service shouldn't matter. Furthermore, (and I've said this before)....please explain to me what about National Guard service is not honorable? I know many people who have served in the Guard, and they are every bit as proud of their service as someone in the military. And again, AIR National Guardsmen actually had a high probability of going to 'Nam....as our pilots had one of the worst kill ratios of any war....we needed pilots.

Not too many people are left who can't find a multitude of issues to bad mouth him about. You're a rarity 55, thank God.

Given my explanations above gunns....I am no rarity, nor do I claim to be. Quite fortunately, MANY people think like I do.....thank God.

[Spider]

Fmakes me laugh when the loony left says he is a "right wing neo-con".....nothing could be further from the truth. He's just not quite as liberal as John Kerry is. Therefore, I voted for him while holding my nose.

.
whoa there ....... look up neo Con , Bush jr is in lock step .......
preemtive war = Check
more social programs = Check
huge goverment = Check
More military spending = Check
a neo con is far from the traditional Pat Buchanon republican ......
1 st real neo con was Reagan , neo cons have been in power since , Bush sr , Clinton , Bush jr ......
Neo cons basicaly were Democrats that left the party , and they had some damn good ideas , where I part company with neo Cons is the preemtive stirke doctorine they have ....... War should always be the very last option .......

[55CrushEm]

preemtive war = Check
more social programs = Check
huge goverment = Check
More military spending = Check
a neo con is far from the traditional Pat Buchanon republican ......
1 st real neo con was Reagan , neo cons have been in power since , Bush sr , Clinton , Bush jr ......
Neo cons basicaly were Democrats that left the party , and they had some damn good ideas , where I part company with neo Cons is the preemtive stirke doctorine they have ....... War should always be the very last option .......

My apologies....I must have misunderstood "neocon". A true conservative, does NOT believe in bigger government or more social programs, however. They do, however, believe in bigger military.

So therein must lie a difference between "conservative" and "neocon", eh?

But don't lump Reagan in with the Bushies......no comparison. Reagan DID however make a lot of concessions to the Democrat controlled congress, so that he could get his tax cuts.....therefore, he may have appeared not-so-conservative in some of his ways.....unfortunately, that's politics.

Bushies are no conservatives.....

[Spider]

My apologies....I must have misunderstood "neocon". A true conservative, does NOT believe in bigger government or more social programs, however. They do, however, believe in bigger military.

So therein must lie a difference between "conservative" and "neocon", eh?

But don't lump Reagan in with the Bushies......no comparison. Reagan DID however make a lot of concessions to the Democrat controlled congress, so that he could get his tax cuts.....therefore, he may have appeared not-so-conservative in some of his ways.....unfortunately, that's politics.

Bushies are no conservatives.....
;D naw yo are old school con bro ........you know whats sad is , I liked that sawed off little Bullshítter in office , right up to Iraq ......

[Spider]

if it had not been for Iraq , I wouldnt be so hard on our Drug store Cowboy presdent ......

[55CrushEm]

;D naw yo are old school con bro ........you know whats sad is , I liked that sawed off little Bullshítter in office , right up to Iraq ......

Hilarious! ......you DO come up with some funny shiat....

You need to train Slug.....he's too serious.

As I say, "You're allright, Spider!" :thumbs:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He is a pi$$-poor public speaker, and comes across as not too bright....but the funny thing is he had better grades in college than John Kerry...I'll try to find the article from the Boston Globe that posted Kerry's transcript.
Bush 4 year average - 77, Kerry 4 year average - 76.

It is noteworthy, however, that Kerry received a high honor at Yale despite his mediocre grades: He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker. He delivered a speech questioning the wisdom of the Vietnam War, in which he would soon see combat.

Kerry gradually improved his grades, averaging 81 in his senior year. His highest single grade was an 89, for a political science class in his senior year. Despite his slow start, he went on to be a top student at Naval Candidate School, command a patrol boat in Vietnam, graduate from law school
http://tinyurl.com/dco6d


Second, comments like Bush "dodging" the draft are so hypocritical out of the libs mouths when they defended Clinton's draft dodging, saying that military service shouldn't matter. And again, AIR National Guardsmen actually had a high probability of going to 'Nam....as our pilots had one of the worst kill ratios of any war....we needed pilots.

Hilarious!
How do explain Clinton making himself eligible for the lottery and Bush not?

And for your info, NG pilots were the LAST in line to go to Vietnam that's why his daddy got him in.

President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.

Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, last flew in April 1972 -- just before the missed physical and 30 months before his flight commitment ended. He also did not attend National Guard training for several months that year and was permitted to cut short his military commitment a year later in 1973.
http://tinyurl.com/2a8ss

[Spider]

Hilarious! ......

As I say, "You're allright, Spider!" :thumbs:
tell my wife , I am getting my áss chewed out ......... tried to go solo on the feeding and changing of the triplets ........ needless to say all 3 will need therapy now , cause I screwed everything up ..... Must pay attention to the color codes ;D

[The Lone Bolt]

Wrong. I didn't claim to "know for a fact" what the security council would do.

What I do claim to know for a fact is that Bush's so-called pre-war "evidence" that Iraq had WMD was bogus.



Your argument boils down to the following:

Bush was justified in invading Iraq because we don't know whether the UN Security Council, given the additional time the inspectors requested, would have declared that Iraq had disarmed or not.

See the fallacy yet?

And you argument boils down to the following:

After 12 years of weapons inspections that failed to produce a declaration of full compliance, somehow two more weeks of inspections had a high probablility of suddenly producing results, therefore not allowing two more weeks of inspections is "evidence" that Bush wanted to avoid lifting sanctions.

The flaw in your logic is that the probability of the weapons inspectors declaring Iraq in compliance in two more weeks was in fact extremely low and not high. After 12 years of weapons inspections there was no declaration of compliance from the UN. You offer no evidence whatsoever that this was about to change in two more weeks.

You are wildly exaggerating the significance of those two weeks which is a logical fallacy. In order to establish a likelyhood that Bush attacked prematurely in order to avoid a lifting of sanctions you would need to produce evidence that an event which had not occurred over the course of 12 years suddenly had an increased probability of occuring in two additional weeks. You have failed to provide such evidence.

See the fallacy yet?

[Spider]

the golden rule ... he who has the gold makes the rules .........

[55CrushEm]

See the fallacy yet?
Forget about it Bolt.....the "Bubbabots" refuse to grasp this. In all honesty, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they have the capability to get it.....it just doesn't fit their agenda.

[55CrushEm]

the golden rule ... he who has the gold makes the rules .........

Aladdin.....one of my kids' favorite movies....

[Spider]

Aladdin.....one of my kids' favorite movies....
I got 6 kids ......... and I like my women like I like my coffee ........ hand picked by juan Valdez , put in a sack and thrown in the back of a wagon ......... [;D sorry , I am in a damn good mood today , it happens when I spend time with my family ......... I might have a deal worked out to buy the Child molesters truck , if I do , i will give it to my son , let him own it ;D
poetic justice if you ask me

[Spider]

oh the truck is a 18 wheeler ..... not a pick up ..... ijust have to find a place where he can drive it and work on it ......

[55CrushEm]

I got 6 kids ......... and I like my women like I like my coffee ........ hand picked by juan Valdez , put in a sack and thrown in the back of a wagon ......... [;D sorry , I am in a damn good mood today , it happens when I spend time with my family ......... I might have a deal worked out to buy the Child molesters truck , if I do , i will give it to my son , let him own it ;D
poetic justice if you ask me

Speaking of kids, sorry to hijack the thread, but.....

A guy and his young son walk into a drugstore, and happen to walk into the aisle with condoms.

Looking at a single condom....the boy says, "Why do they sell one at a time?"
The father says, "Son, those are for the high school kids who may only occasionally get a chance to be alone with their girlfriends."

"So, Dad, why are those other condoms in 3-packs?"
"Well son, those are for the college kids who have entire weekends with their girlfriends."

"So Dad, why are those condoms in 12-packs?", pointing to a different shelf.
"Well son, those are for the married guys......January, February, March...."

[Spider]

Speaking of kids, sorry to hijack the thread, but.....

A guy and his young son walk into a drugstore, and happen to walk into the aisle with condoms.

Looking at a single condom....the boy says, "Why do they sell one at a time?"
The father says, "Son, those are for the high school kids who may only occasionally get a chance to be alone with their girlfriends."

"So, Dad, why are those other condoms in 3-packs?"
"Well son, those are for the college kids who have entire weekends with their girlfriends."

"So Dad, why are those condoms in 12-packs?", pointing to a different shelf.
"Well son, those are for the married guys......January, February, March...."
ROFL!
here is a picture of the truck I am working on getting for my son .......
http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/paul_kane/pk_zavitz_gmc_general.jpg
Sun visor 289.00 , Petrbuilt sleeper 1,800 ,Aluminum wheels 3,500 ( around there) ..... wouldnt be a bad truck

[The Lone Bolt]

Speaking of kids, sorry to hijack the thread, but.....

A guy and his young son walk into a drugstore, and happen to walk into the aisle with condoms.

Looking at a single condom....the boy says, "Why do they sell one at a time?"
The father says, "Son, those are for the high school kids who may only occasionally get a chance to be alone with their girlfriends."

"So, Dad, why are those other condoms in 3-packs?"
"Well son, those are for the college kids who have entire weekends with their girlfriends."

"So Dad, why are those condoms in 12-packs?", pointing to a different shelf.
"Well son, those are for the married guys......January, February, March...."

ROFL! ROFL! Seriously funny ****!!

[Blueflame]

You mind going back and looking at the Bush speech I posted and let me know what "ever-changing rationales" have been used that were NOT included in his pre-war speech? Maybe you guys just missed all the original rationales due to the narrow lenses of your glasses.. WMD was emphasized, but was not the only reason..

Show me one of them that wasn't a bald-faced lie. No, I'm not going back and looking at that speech... I'm all out of BS repellent and don't feel like putting on the ol' hip waders.

By the way, seems like we have found some of the WMD Saddam was supposed to destroy and lied about.. I know, I know! I'm sure the parameters of "WMD" are about to change now due to inconvenient facts... ;D

Let me guess... this "news" is being reported only by Faux, right?

[Blueflame]

My apologies....I must have misunderstood "neocon". A true conservative, does NOT believe in bigger government or more social programs, however. They do, however, believe in bigger military.

So therein must lie a difference between "conservative" and "neocon", eh?

But don't lump Reagan in with the Bushies......no comparison. Reagan DID however make a lot of concessions to the Democrat controlled congress, so that he could get his tax cuts.....therefore, he may have appeared not-so-conservative in some of his ways.....unfortunately, that's politics.

Bushies are no conservatives.....

Therein lies the conundrum... getting true conservatives to realize that there is a huge difference between the conservative and the neocon agenda...

[defenseman]

Show me one of them that wasn't a bald-faced lie. No, I'm not going back and looking at that speech... I'm all out of BS repellent and don't feel like putting on the ol' hip waders.



Let me guess... this "news" is being reported only by Faux, right?

I'd put your waders back on, if you think you need them. Then go back and read it again. Gotta make sure, without a doubt they were bald-faced lies. If they aren't, it'll bite ya later. Assuming, just because it's GW talking is not the way to handle it. I listened to Clinton for years, and never liked the guy either. But, had to make sure what he was doing and saying. I never assumed with him thats for sure. Cause he never ceased to amaze me.....dman

[55CrushEm]

Therein lies the conundrum... getting true conservatives to realize that there is a huge difference between the conservative and the neocon agenda...

Apparently so.....as much as I give examples, Bubba-bots like Slug and Gangsta fail to see this, too. I'm looking forward to Bush leaving office as much as anyone.

Only difference is...I want a real conservative in office....they want a Michael Moore liberal.

What has been sickening to me in American politics is that BOTH parties have moved considerably LEFT on the political spectrum.

[Edskins_RVA]

Show me one of them that wasn't a bald-faced lie. No, I'm not going back and looking at that speech... I'm all out of BS repellent and don't feel like putting on the ol' hip waders.
Not an altogether suprising response considering our previous conversations... I realize YOU know better, so you don't actually have to see the information for yourself.. It must be a nice and easy way to go through life.. ;)



Let me guess... this "news" is being reported only by Faux, right?
I actually watched the press conference myself.. I don't think FOX "made it up"... You probably do though.. :wiggle:

[Blueflame]

I'd put your waders back on, if you think you need them. Then go back and read it again. Gotta make sure, without a doubt they were bald-faced lies. If they aren't, it'll bite ya later. Assuming, just because it's GW talking is not the way to handle it. I listened to Clinton for years, and never liked the guy either. But, had to make sure what he was doing and saying. I never assumed with him thats for sure. Cause he never ceased to amaze me.....dman

With Dubya, one's safer presuming everything he says is a lie, Dman... he lies so often I'm not certain even he can differentiate anymore.

[Blueflame]

Not an altogether suprising response considering our previous conversations... I realize YOU know better, so you don't actually have to see the information for yourself.. It must be a nice and easy way to go through life.. ;)



I actually watched the press conference myself.. I don't think FOX "made it up"... You probably do though.. :wiggle:

What must be a nice and easy way to go through life is to keep on believing in sources that have repeatedly been caught lying to you... in the case of propaganda addicts, it isn't "fool me once or fool me twice or even can't get fooled again"... it's "here I am in the dark... keep the BS coming"....

[Blueflame]

Apparently so.....as much as I give examples, Bubba-bots like Slug and Gangsta fail to see this, too. I'm looking forward to Bush leaving office as much as anyone.

Only difference is...I want a real conservative in office....they want a Michael Moore liberal.

What has been sickening to me in American politics is that BOTH parties have moved considerably LEFT on the political spectrum.

"Real conservatives" in today's political climate appear to be an endangered species as the neocons have almost totally taken over the Republican party.

Do you really think both parties have moved left? I think they've moved rightwards as the word "liberal" has been demonized and Dems want to be viewed as more "centrist" or "moderate".... and many Republicans seem to see no downside to being perceived as "extreme rightwing"...

[55CrushEm]

"Real conservatives" in today's political climate appear to be an endangered species as the neocons have almost totally taken over the Republican party.
Totally agree....sadly.

Do you really think both parties have moved left? I think they've moved rightwards as the word "liberal" has been demonized and Dems want to be viewed as more "centrist" or "moderate".... and many Republicans seem to see no downside to being perceived as "extreme rightwing"...
I don't think the word "liberal" has been any more demonized by the right, than the term "rightwing" has been demonized by the left.

I agree that Dems want to be VIEWED as centrists or moderates, but the party has been taken over by the extreme left of it, so I totally disagree with you that the Dem party has moved "right".....they don't even seem to want to include Lieberman in the party anymore....one Dem who I would actually consider voting for for president. What else are conservatives like me to think when Michael Moore gets a seat of honor at the Dem Convention, Howard Dean becomes the DNC Chair, and your congressional leaders are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi......all VERY liberal politicians. Why did the Democratic party demonize Zel Miller, one of their own? Because he wasn't as liberal as the party has become? Just my thoughts....

Gotta run....I'll catch up with the board on Monday....taking tomorrow off for a long weekend.

[defenseman]

"Real conservatives" in today's political climate appear to be an endangered species as the neocons have almost totally taken over the Republican party.

Do you really think both parties have moved left? I think they've moved rightwards as the word "liberal" has been demonized and Dems want to be viewed as more "centrist" or "moderate".... and many Republicans seem to see no downside to being perceived as "extreme rightwing"...

I'm thinking, both parties majorities have moved to the center for the most part, WITH a small piece of each side, moving away from center to the extreme left or extreme right. For the OVERALL of each party(Center vs. far left or right) weighing out and positioning itself pretty much the same as it was. Neocon? Explain..dman

*the DEMS though, have a bit of an image problem from where I sit. Lots of in fighting in and amongst the rank and file. They have to get that in check soon to "truley" be competitive in 2008.

[Blueflame]

Totally agree....sadly.


I don't think the word "liberal" has been any more demonized by the right, than the term "rightwing" has been demonized by the left.

I agree that Dems want to be VIEWED as centrists or moderates, but the party has been taken over by the extreme left of it, so I totally disagree with you that the Dem party has moved "right".....they don't even seem to want to include Lieberman in the party anymore....one Dem who I would actually consider voting for for president. What else are conservatives like me to think when Michael Moore gets a seat of honor at the Dem Convention, Howard Dean becomes the DNC Chair, and your congressional leaders are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi......all VERY liberal politicians. Why did the Democratic party demonize Zel Miller, one of their own? Because he wasn't as liberal as the party has become? Just my thoughts....

Gotta run....I'll catch up with the board on Monday....taking tomorrow off for a long weekend.

When Dems like Lieberman and Zell Miller move rightward (in an effort to possibly appeal to moderate or centrist Republicans and/or in a one-sided effort toward "bipartisanship") to the point that they are virtually indistinguishable from Republicans... many Dem voters will simply vote for the Republican candidate rather than the Repub-Lite. If one voted for a Dem as a check or rein on one-party muscle-flexing, one is going to be rather disappointed to see them instead rubber-stamp every move the other party makes.

Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, most often vote in lockstep. It's very rare to see any of them go against the majority leadership. Power is perceived in the solid voting bloc... and I do believe some leaders (Tom DeLay) may have financially penalized any mutinies in order to minimize them.

[freak6]

Neocon? Explain..dman


lmao, you gotta be kidding me dman, neo-conservative.

Rummy worked for Ford, hired Cheney, they fired everybody there, put Bush in at CIA, Bush VP for Ronny(puppet Pres #1)Cheney Sec of Def for Bush, Rummy back in as Sec of Def for Bush 2(puppet Pres #2), Cheney at VP, they cronize the entire government to include the EPA, FDA, FCC, all of it.

Research

Rise of the Vulcans
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/ford.html

You can see how the corrupt SOBs got into power over the years via the links on the bottom of that page.

[Blueflame]

I'm thinking, both parties majorities have moved to the center for the most part, WITH a small piece of each side, moving away from center to the extreme left or extreme right. For the OVERALL of each party(Center vs. far left or right) weighing out and positioning itself pretty much the same as it was. Neocon? Explain..dman

*the DEMS though, have a bit of an image problem from where I sit. Lots of in fighting in and amongst the rank and file. They have to get that in check soon to "truley" be competitive in 2008.

The problem, from my point of view, is that both parties are essentially bought and paid for by the big corporations... when they've taken enough cash to be beholden and their votes can no longer be construed as representative of the will of the people that elected them, then we have a big problem. Many corporations donate to both candidates in a given election, so it doesn't matter which one wins; the corporation "owns" their vote either way.

"Neocon".... trying to find a definition source that won't be characterized as a "lefty site"... LOL

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

In order to solidify their support, it's my opinion that the Democratic party needs to stop trying to be "Republican Lite" and focus instead on the issues that affect us all. When they're too busy defending themselves against the so-called "wedge" issues... which have, in recent election cycles, been the primary focus of the corporate media... then the really important stuff takes a backseat. Unfortunately. In the '04 election, "gay marriage" really wasn't the biggest issue facing America... and it got way more ink... and airtime... than it merited, imho.

[freak6]

1. Iraq Policy/National Defense and War on Terror

2. Universal Healthcare

3. Budget, Deficit, Import/Export Deficit,

4. Border Security

5. Securing the Lombardi Trophy for the Broncos

These should be the Democrats order of concerns imo.

5a. Get Carmelo a pure 2 guard with a J

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And you argument boils down to the following:

After 12 years of weapons inspections that failed to produce a declaration of full compliance, somehow two more weeks of inspections had a high probablility of suddenly producing results, therefore not allowing two more weeks of inspections is "evidence" that Bush wanted to avoid lifting sanctions.


Two faulty premises in your thinking:

1) Absence of a declaration of full compliance does not = positive proof of possession of the WMD the bush misadministration claimed Iraq possessed (the specific location of which Donald Rumsfeld claimed to know.)

2) Once again, you argue on the one hand that the UN Security Council should have the final word in verifying Iraq's disarmament while arguing that Bush was justified in ignoring the council's request for additional time to finish the inspection process on the other. You can't have it both ways.

The flaw in your logic is that the probability of the weapons inspectors declaring Iraq in compliance in two more weeks was in fact extremely low and not high. After 12 years of weapons inspections there was no declaration of compliance from the UN.

The flaw in your logic is that the burden to prove the existence of the weapons BushCo claimed Iraq possessed was on BushCo - particularly when the junta cited specific "evidence" of weapons and weapons programs and claimed to know the whereabouts of said weapons.

You offer no evidence whatsoever that this was about to change in two more weeks.

Wrong again.

The UN inspectors had almost completed inspections of every site in the country they wished to examine. They only required two more weeks to finish the job (which is precisely why Dim Son was in such a rush to invade Iraq.)

You are wildly exaggerating the significance of those two weeks which is a logical fallacy. In order to establish a likelyhood(sic) that Bush attacked prematurely in order to avoid a lifting of sanctions you would need to produce evidence that an event which had not occurred over the course of 12 years suddenly had an increased probability of occuring in two additional weeks. You have failed to provide such evidence.

Wrong.

Anyone who remembers the run-up to the war (and who isn't engaging in revisionist history) remembers that the U.N. inspectors reported they were two weeks away from finishing the job.

Bush rushed the country into war because he knew the inspectors were close to verifying what was subsequently verified after the invasion, i.e., that Iraq had no WMD.

According to your "logic," it's reasonable to assume that Iraq possesses all the WMD BushCo claimed it did right now as we speak because the UN Security Council has yet to issue an official declaration to the contrary.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Inconvenient facts LoneBolt chooses to ignore:

“...the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council before the war: There were no nuclear-designated aluminum tubes in Iraq; no uranium was imported, and no nuclear programs were in existence. Between 1991 and 1998, the IAEA had managed to strip Iraq of its fuel-enriching facilities, tallying inventories to a T. Or in Kay’s belated words: ‘Iraq’s large-scale capability to produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced – if not entirely destroyed – during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections.’”

“According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Congress in 1999 was privy to intelligence reports which similarly attested to a lack of ‘any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox (1998) to reconstitute its WMD program …’ Accounts of this nature have evidently been available to Congress for years. They reiterated, as one report from the Defense Intelligence Agency does, that, ‘A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were [sic] destroyed between 1991 and 1998.’”

“Kay’s ‘news’ ought not to have been new to the blithering boobs in Congress,” I observed. “The CEIP further bears out that in October of 2002, Congress was apprised of a National Intelligence Estimate, a declassified version of which was released only after the war. Apparently, entire intelligence agencies disputed key contentions that the administration—its experts, and its congressional and media backers—seized on and ran with.”

“While clearly pandering to policy makers, U.S. intelligence reports were still heavily qualified by conjectural expressions such as, ‘we believe Iraq could, might, possibly, and probably will...’ The State Department and the White House, however, cultivated a custom of issuing ‘fact’ sheets with definitive statements from which all traces of uncertainty had been removed.”

“Condoleezza Rice (who had categorically denied she possessed the analytical wherewithal to connect the dazzlingly close dots between Arab men practicing their aeronautical take-off skills and terrorism) was suddenly doing nothing but connecting disparate dots. She, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush never stopped gabbling about a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear-weapons program, chemical and biological blights, Scuds and squadrons of unmanned aerial vehicles streaking U.S. skies, and traveling laboratories teeming with twisted scientists. The language they used… ignored the deep dissent in the intelligence community.”

All that information addressing pre-war knowledge was culled from my column, “What WMD?”

Coalesced in “Ink Stains and Blood Stains” is information I had given my readers in 2003-columns such as “Bush’s 16 words miss the Big Picture” and “High Crimes vs. Hillary & Her husband,” among others. In “Bush’s 16 Words Miss the Big Picture,” I beseeched readers to somehow show an ability to “…see Bush’s sub-intelligent case for war for what it was”:

“The administration’s war wasn’t about a few pieces that did not gel in an otherwise coherent framework, it wasn’t about an Iraq that was poised to attack the U.S. with germs and chemicals rather than with nukes; it was about a resigned, hungry, economic pariah that was a sitting duck for the power-hungry American colossus.

“By all means,” I implored, “dissect and analyze what, in September 2002, I called the ‘lattice of lies’ leveled at Iraq: the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes from Timbuktu, the invisible ‘meetings’ with al-Qaida in Prague, an al-Qaida training camp that existed under Kurdish—not Iraqi—control, as well as the alleged weaponized chemical and biological stockpiles and their attendant delivery systems that inspectors doubted were there and which never materialized.”

“But then assemble the pieces and synthesize the information, will you?”

In “Rationalize With Lies” I dealt a blow to the Hannity inanity Mr. Auster now advances, namely the “creative post-hocarguments … made to justify the unnecessary war the United States waged on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us, was no threat to us and was certainly no match for us.” The argument resembles the one my FMNN-colleague Tibor Machan has made here recently. I wrote:

“To say that Saddam may have had WMD is quite different from advocating war based on those assumptions. It’s one thing to assume in error; it’s quite another to launch a war in which thousands would die based on mere assumptions, however widely shared. It was not the anti-war-on-Iraq camp that intended to launch a war based on the sketchy information it had. The crucial difference between the Bush camp and its opponents lies in the actions the former took.”

“Second, it matters a great deal when during the last decade someone said Saddam was in possession of impermissible weapons. To have said so in 1991 is not the same as saying so in 2003, by which time Iraq had so obviously been cowed into compliance and was crawling with inspectors.”

“Naturally, at certain times during Iraq’s belligerent history, opponents of this war would have agreed he had a weapons program. But by 1998, sensible people realized that Operation Desert Storm, followed by seven years of inspections, made the possibility of reconstituting such a program remote. The Defense Intelligence Agency reached the same conclusion in September 2002, writing that, “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998.” President Jacques Chirac said as much to both Bush and Blair, who pretended not to hear.”

I (and many of my fellow libertarians) was right all along because I am not a partisan who genuflects to Our Side. To arrive at the correct conclusions about Bush’s undeniable drive to war, I employed facts and reality, “the Jewish teachings, which instruct Jews to robustly and actively seek justice, "Just War Theory," developed by great Christian minds like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the libertarian axiom, which prohibits aggression against non-aggressors, the natural law, and what the Founding Fathers provided”:

“A limited, constitutional republican government, by definition,” I wrote in March 12, 2003, “doesn’t, cannot, and must never pursue what Bush is after…a sort of 21st-century Manifest Destiny.”

I was right because, like many of the silenced, I adhered to reality and followed immutably correct intellectual and moral principles. I’ll be damned if I allow anyone to deflect from the intellectual and moral corruption of those who failed to do the same.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analys...06&wid=56&pv=1

[freak6]

The Neo-Cons have ruined our country.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Neo-Cons have ruined our country.

Yep.

In just six short years, they have completely flushed our once-proud, once-respected, once prosperous nation down the sh*tter.

http://www.bartcop.com/halli-pleasure.gif