What you seem to forget is all those statements were made on information that was sifted by this administration before it got to them. Thus they were given (FALSE) information. Where do you stand on that?Kmarion wrote:
It was nice to watch this after having the Democrats continualy throw in the Republicans face that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Ok mod, I forget how sensitive some people are
Do you have proof of this, or are you just blowing smoke to support your theory?Aenima_Eyes wrote:
Also, I don't think anyone has ever debunked the idea that Saddam had WMDs. . .he KNEW he was on the hotseat after 9/11. . .and so he shipped them out to people he knew wanted them. If this idea has been debunked, please, show me the evidence.
If you tell a drug dealer the cops are coming to break down his door in a few days what's he going to do with his drugs? Get rid of them. . .
The big picture is that both parties suck. Vote Green ftw! You'll be inundated with enviormental regulation, but there not corrupt yet and you'll have clean air to breath.oug wrote:
Just one small detail: BOTH Democrats & Republicans were WRONG because there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And if the Clinton administration was stupid enough to lie to the American people that there were WMDs, the Bush administration is 10 times stupid to lie and invade. Try to get over the petty differences between the two pathetic parties (who are actually of one and the same political stance) and look at the goddamn big picture.Kmarion wrote:
It was nice to watch this after having the Democrats continualy throw in the Republicans face that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Either way the point is this: Is it ok for one administration to believe the intelligence handed to them but not the other? Lets not pretend we know exactly what was "sifted" or act as if any one of us has any real inside knowledge on how the inside operations of organziations of the CIA or FBI work. Truth is only people involved know and to come up with some silly theory in order to promote one party's side is the only obvious misinformation I can see.GATOR591957 wrote:
What you seem to forget is all those statements were made on information that was sifted by this administration before it got to them. Thus they were given (FALSE) information. Where do you stand on that?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
yOU DO REALIZE THAT YOU ARE ASKING A SMART QUESTION TO A FIELD WHOS MEDIAN AGE IS 17?
I don't think that the Dems or anyone would falsify information aka treason. You mean it was bad information, not doctored...right?GATOR591957 wrote:
What you seem to forget is all those statements were made on information that was sifted by this administration before it got to them. Thus they were given (FALSE) information. Where do you stand on that?
The Democratic Party and Republican Party in the U.S. are both guardians of a system that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, so I consider both inefficient. Tell me, what are the major differences of the two parties?
My point is that whether it be a "Democrat" or "Republican", both are looking for a few things: Get reelected; be loyal to fellow partymembers; deliver for their respective lobby groups; resist change to a system in which both are juggernauts and the only serious players.
My point is that whether it be a "Democrat" or "Republican", both are looking for a few things: Get reelected; be loyal to fellow partymembers; deliver for their respective lobby groups; resist change to a system in which both are juggernauts and the only serious players.
No, most accounts report GW and company were ready to go to war in Iraq prior to his swearing in ceremony. I believe there is also proof the Brits found that indicate the information on WMD's were doctored. Tony Blair took a real beating for this.Pug wrote:
I don't think that the Dems or anyone would falsify information aka treason. You mean it was bad information, not doctored...right?GATOR591957 wrote:
What you seem to forget is all those statements were made on information that was sifted by this administration before it got to them. Thus they were given (FALSE) information. Where do you stand on that?
And who told you I need my mind changed and not you?Pug wrote:
And what's the chances of you changing your mind? So why bother debating?
Let's assume both Clinton and Bush had the same information about the WMD's provided by the CIA. While Clinton did not invade Iraq based on that possible but not sure information, GWB did.Kmarion wrote:
Either way the point is this: Is it ok for one administration to believe the intelligence handed to them but not the other? Lets not pretend we know exactly what was "sifted" or act as if any one of us has any real inside knowledge on how the inside operations of organziations of the CIA or FBI work. Truth is only people involved know and to come up with some silly theory in order to promote one party's side is the only obvious misinformation I can see.GATOR591957 wrote:
What you seem to forget is all those statements were made on information that was sifted by this administration before it got to them. Thus they were given (FALSE) information. Where do you stand on that?
There you go with the word possible again..lolsergeriver wrote:
Let's assume both Clinton and Bush had the same information about the WMD's provided by the CIA. While Clinton did not invade Iraq based on that possible but not sure information, GWB did.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The information provided by CIA wasn't very accurate, so called the word whatever you want. They should not make such a decision over that information.Kmarion wrote:
There you go with the word possible again..lolsergeriver wrote:
Let's assume both Clinton and Bush had the same information about the WMD's provided by the CIA. While Clinton did not invade Iraq based on that possible but not sure information, GWB did.
Not what I'm saying - I'm saying we will not agree, so debating is a waste of time. I respect your opinion, but I'm of the belief that the war extended beyond WMDs.sergeriver wrote:
And who told you I need my mind changed and not you?Pug wrote:
And what's the chances of you changing your mind? So why bother debating?
Here's a start if you want to begin changing my mind.
It comes down to whether you support the invasion or not, which has to do what you think the goals of the invasion were, were they accomplished, and was it worth it...
Ahh, who doctored the info, what was the source? CIA & Brit intel, right?GATOR591957 wrote:
No, most accounts report GW and company were ready to go to war in Iraq prior to his swearing in ceremony. I believe there is also proof the Brits found that indicate the information on WMD's were doctored. Tony Blair took a real beating for this.Pug wrote:
I don't think that the Dems or anyone would falsify information aka treason. You mean it was bad information, not doctored...right?GATOR591957 wrote:
What you seem to forget is all those statements were made on information that was sifted by this administration before it got to them. Thus they were given (FALSE) information. Where do you stand on that?
Which goals, the goals they told you or the real ones? Let's get honest here, I don't think they went to Iraq coz of the WMD's or to establish a democracy. GWB went for oil, so his own goals were accomplished.Pug wrote:
Not what I'm saying - I'm saying we will not agree, so debating is a waste of time. I respect your opinion, but I'm of the belief that the war extended beyond WMDs.sergeriver wrote:
And who told you I need my mind changed and not you?Pug wrote:
And what's the chances of you changing your mind? So why bother debating?
Here's a start if you want to begin changing my mind.
It comes down to whether you support the invasion or not, which has to do what you think the goals of the invasion were, were they accomplished, and was it worth it...
How much oil does the US get from Iraq?sergeriver wrote:
Which goals, the goals they told you or the real ones? Let's get honest here, I don't think they went to Iraq coz of the WMD's or to establish a democracy. GWB went for oil, so his own goals were accomplished.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html
US imports 13.1 million barrels per day (2004). 558,000/13,100,000 = 4.5%.
I don't think that's the reason. Plus there's the argument that it would raise the price of oil and therefore hurt the economy. Plus there's the argument that there is no way the US could "keep" Iraq.
WMD's were presumed in Iraq because IRAQ locked out the UN inspectors mandated to be there by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) that Iraq continually vioated all during the 90's......We resumed hostilities with Iraq because of these violations, not specifically for WMD's. WMD's were a huge concern, but the reason was resolution violations.sergeriver wrote:
I totally agree, it's hypocrite to criticize GWB for having the same presumption than Clinton, but it's not hypocrite to criticize him for invading Iraq over those presumptions.Kmarion wrote:
Agreed but the point is both parties had presumptions. It's not even who is right or wrong but rather the fact they can bash Bush and pretend he was the only one with the notion the Saddam had WMD's is crazy. Did either one truly know what was going on most likely no. But they both displayed the same idea. It's easy criticize after the fact. It's called Monday morning quarterback.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying, despite who was at the office, you can't invade a country over a presumption.Definitely.sergeriver wrote:
And to be honest all politicians are more or less hypocrites.
I agree, it can't get any simpler than that.jsnipy wrote:
These people just play on popular opinion. No different than any marketer of a product.
He didn't do it for US. He is doing it for the major Oil Companies, all of which had previous contracts to drill oil in Iraq.Pug wrote:
How much oil does the US get from Iraq?sergeriver wrote:
Which goals, the goals they told you or the real ones? Let's get honest here, I don't think they went to Iraq coz of the WMD's or to establish a democracy. GWB went for oil, so his own goals were accomplished.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html
US imports 13.1 million barrels per day (2004). 558,000/13,100,000 = 4.5%.
I don't think that's the reason. Plus there's the argument that it would raise the price of oil and therefore hurt the economy. Plus there's the argument that there is no way the US could "keep" Iraq.
Lowing, President Bush, as Clinton's administration, said in several times there were WMD's in Iraq based on false information. You can't invade a country coz you think they are violating UN resolution. In fact the UN inspectors were there just before the invasion if I remember well.lowing wrote:
WMD's were presumed in Iraq because IRAQ locked out the UN inspectors mandated to be there by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) that Iraq continually vioated all during the 90's......We resumed hostilities with Iraq because of these violations, not specifically for WMD's. WMD's were a huge concern, but the reason was resolution violations.sergeriver wrote:
I totally agree, it's hypocrite to criticize GWB for having the same presumption than Clinton, but it's not hypocrite to criticize him for invading Iraq over those presumptions.Kmarion wrote:
Agreed but the point is both parties had presumptions. It's not even who is right or wrong but rather the fact they can bash Bush and pretend he was the only one with the notion the Saddam had WMD's is crazy. Did either one truly know what was going on most likely no. But they both displayed the same idea. It's easy criticize after the fact. It's called Monday morning quarterback.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying, despite who was at the office, you can't invade a country over a presumption.
Definitely.
Yea they were there. They also found them to be in violation of UN resolutions, including having long range missiles, and firing upon our planes, which were doing patrols in accordance with UN resolutions. Funny how people forget this stuff.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, President Bush, as Clinton's administration, said in several times there were WMD's in Iraq based on false information. You can't invade a country coz you think they are violating UN resolution. In fact the UN inspectors were there just before the invasion if I remember well.lowing wrote:
WMD's were presumed in Iraq because IRAQ locked out the UN inspectors mandated to be there by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) that Iraq continually vioated all during the 90's......We resumed hostilities with Iraq because of these violations, not specifically for WMD's. WMD's were a huge concern, but the reason was resolution violations.sergeriver wrote:
I totally agree, it's hypocrite to criticize GWB for having the same presumption than Clinton, but it's not hypocrite to criticize him for invading Iraq over those presumptions.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article … 2100.shtml
That was funny. Thanks for making my day.sergeriver wrote:
He didn't do it for US. He is doing it for the major Oil Companies, all of which had previous contracts to drill oil in Iraq.Pug wrote:
How much oil does the US get from Iraq?sergeriver wrote:
Which goals, the goals they told you or the real ones? Let's get honest here, I don't think they went to Iraq coz of the WMD's or to establish a democracy. GWB went for oil, so his own goals were accomplished.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html
US imports 13.1 million barrels per day (2004). 558,000/13,100,000 = 4.5%.
I don't think that's the reason. Plus there's the argument that it would raise the price of oil and therefore hurt the economy. Plus there's the argument that there is no way the US could "keep" Iraq.
So my next question is, if Big Oil is the theory - where has the hotspot been before and after the war for oil contracts? Take a guess, comrade...cause it isn't Iraq...
Planes that were flying over Iraqi airspace. What would happen if their planes fly over Miami? They'd get shot. Let's not talk about the UN resolutions, nobody listen to that.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yea they were there. They also found them to be in violation of UN resolutions, including having long range missiles, and firing upon our planes, which were doing patrols in accordance with UN resolutions. Funny how people forget this stuff.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, President Bush, as Clinton's administration, said in several times there were WMD's in Iraq based on false information. You can't invade a country coz you think they are violating UN resolution. In fact the UN inspectors were there just before the invasion if I remember well.lowing wrote:
WMD's were presumed in Iraq because IRAQ locked out the UN inspectors mandated to be there by the UN resolutions ( peace treaty) that Iraq continually vioated all during the 90's......We resumed hostilities with Iraq because of these violations, not specifically for WMD's. WMD's were a huge concern, but the reason was resolution violations.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article … 2100.shtml
I must assume you know so tell us pls.Pug wrote:
That was funny. Thanks for making my day.sergeriver wrote:
He didn't do it for US. He is doing it for the major Oil Companies, all of which had previous contracts to drill oil in Iraq.Pug wrote:
How much oil does the US get from Iraq?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html
US imports 13.1 million barrels per day (2004). 558,000/13,100,000 = 4.5%.
I don't think that's the reason. Plus there's the argument that it would raise the price of oil and therefore hurt the economy. Plus there's the argument that there is no way the US could "keep" Iraq.
So my next question is, if Big Oil is the theory - where has the hotspot been before and after the war for oil contracts? Take a guess, comrade...cause it isn't Iraq...
Russia. If your going to believe some crackpot conspiracy theory, go ahead - but defend it with facts every once in a while.
Ps. If this thread you've gone from it's WMDs to it's not really WMDs.
I'll stop now.
Good luck pinning this on something. I don't think we will ever know. BTW post #45 above was a major reason for precipitating the invasion - the last straw.
It comes down to many reasons ... but an objective of the invasion was to remove Saddam and bring in a new gov't (not necessarily democracy). No one said it would be easy.
Frankly instead of trying to understand why it is not right, and why it wasn't justified...try looking at what was accomplished and what HAS to be done. The situation has to get stable and then the troops come home. I'm hoping the definition of stable isn't going to extend the desert vacation much longer.
What's done is done. We can't do anything about the past...
Ps. If this thread you've gone from it's WMDs to it's not really WMDs.
I'll stop now.
Good luck pinning this on something. I don't think we will ever know. BTW post #45 above was a major reason for precipitating the invasion - the last straw.
It comes down to many reasons ... but an objective of the invasion was to remove Saddam and bring in a new gov't (not necessarily democracy). No one said it would be easy.
Frankly instead of trying to understand why it is not right, and why it wasn't justified...try looking at what was accomplished and what HAS to be done. The situation has to get stable and then the troops come home. I'm hoping the definition of stable isn't going to extend the desert vacation much longer.
What's done is done. We can't do anything about the past...