What dog did Iraq attack?Kmarion wrote:
Here comes the big circle again. It's ok to go out and tell everyone that Iraq is a threat to our National security but to sit by and watch? Can't you see how that whole ideology hurts your argument more? When you acknowledge the fact we are in danger but do nothing it seems to be there is a huge problem there. At some point you're going to have to realize that based on what they thought whether it was right or wrong at the time they told everyone openly that Saddam was threatening.sergeriver wrote:
Who did not invade Iraq based on that information and who did?Kmarion wrote:
The video starts in 1998. Who was in the Whitehouse then?
This argument isn't even really based on what actions were or were not taken. That is a separate topic. This one takes on the whole argument that "it's the Bush administration that lied." If you choose to remain stern to that opinion then you are turning your head to the fact that not only did Bush believe he was dangerous, the majority of the Democratic party did as well. They believed it so much that the felt secure enough to openly share it with the Pentagon ,Security council, and the rest of the world.(At least until we went in). That is the Hypocrisy.You can't have it both ways
Concede the fact he lied because if he did then so did many other democrats. Flawed intelligence, maybe. Did he act when he shouldn't have? Feel free to discuss in the 30 other topics floating around on that matter.
If we both thought that I had a dangerous dog. We both walked around talking about how dangerous my dog is. After watching my dog attack a smaller dog I decided it's time for that dog to be put down. Whether the dog should have been put down or not does not change the fact we both believed the dog was dangerous. Although our responses are different and debatable it does not change the fact that we both believed the dog was dangerous. The difference is I decided to do something with my beliefs. It doesn't mean I lied because after the fact we realize the dog was not dangerous and we had different opinions on the actions that should be taken.
Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-27 13:32:24)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No One. I Say No One, Comes Into Our House And Fucks With Toto. No One!!!!!
I'm just asking where your analogy was going. I'm looking for the reason we attacked Iraq. If it was because Sadaam attacked Kuwait, we already took care of that. Remember the first gulf war. If it was his attacking the Kurds, then why aren't we in Africa. Far more attrocities going on there.Kmarion wrote:
Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-09-27 14:09:25)
The reason we went in is not the point in this topic (I'm not dodging the topic but there are plenty of threads for that). It's the belief he was a threat on both sides. So to say Bush lied is to say the Dem's lied as well. It's a matter of why say it if you don't believe. Going in could be wrong but don't say because we went in we lied. To lie and being wrong are two different things.GATOR591957 wrote:
I'm just asking where your analogy was going. I'm looking for the reason we attacked Iraq. If it was because Saddam attacked Kuwait, we already took care of that. Remember the first gulf war. If it was his attacking the Kurds, then why aren't we in Africa. Far more atrocities going on there.Kmarion wrote:
Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)
We were in Africa on a humanitarian mission we lost some brave men and we left. It's not only the US that needs to examine what's going on inf Africa but the entire world. Can you imagine the response if we did go into Africa?
What is the UN doing to help Africa today? <-- Serious question.
If you would could you list specifically the atrocities that are currently going on so I can examine which countries are doing something about them? Everything I dig up seems to be old using google.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
But you can't to put the dog down before it bites anyone.Kmarion wrote:
Here comes the big circle again. It's ok to go out and tell everyone that Iraq is a threat to our National security but to sit by and watch? Can't you see how that whole ideology hurts your argument more? When you acknowledge the fact we are in danger but do nothing it seems to be there is a huge problem there. At some point you're going to have to realize that based on what they thought whether it was right or wrong at the time they told everyone openly that Saddam was threatening.sergeriver wrote:
Who did not invade Iraq based on that information and who did?Kmarion wrote:
The video starts in 1998. Who was in the Whitehouse then?
This argument isn't even really based on what actions were or were not taken. That is a separate topic. This one takes on the whole argument that "it's the Bush administration that lied." If you choose to remain stern to that opinion then you are turning your head to the fact that not only did Bush believe he was dangerous, the majority of the Democratic party did as well. They believed it so much that the felt secure enough to openly share it with the Pentagon ,Security council, and the rest of the world.(At least until we went in). That is the Hypocrisy.You can't have it both ways
Concede the fact he lied because if he did then so did many other democrats. Flawed intelligence, maybe. Did he act when he shouldn't have? Feel free to discuss in the 30 other topics floating around on that matter.
If we both thought that I had a dangerous dog. We both walked around talking about how dangerous my dog is. After watching my dog attack a smaller dog I decided it's time for that dog to be put down. Whether the dog should have been put down or not does not change the fact we both believed the dog was dangerous. Although our responses are different and debatable it does not change the fact that we both believed the dog was dangerous. The difference is I decided to do something with my beliefs. It doesn't mean I lied because after the fact we realize the dog was not dangerous and we had different opinions on the actions that should be taken.
That's old news m8. That's not the reason for this invasion. This dog was only barking in 2003.Kmarion wrote:
Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)
Ok, the dems who said there were WMD's and then criticized Bush are hypocrites, but give me the reason in the second part of this hypocrisy, they told Saddam was a threat as Bush did, but the one who invaded Iraq by mistake is Bush and he has all the responsibility for this invasion, and for getting US name bashed all over the world. Do you really think it was intelligent from him the Iraq invasion? There's no winners here. US soldiers dead, people in US hungry with Bush, Muslims countries hating even more US for this war and Iraq is worse now than before. And I can guarantee you Iraq will divide in 2 or 3 countries in the next future.Kmarion wrote:
The reason we went in is not the point in this topic (I'm not dodging the topic but there are plenty of threads for that). It's the belief he was a threat on both sides. So to say Bush lied is to say the Dem's lied as well. It's a matter of why say it if you don't believe. Going in could be wrong but don't say because we went in we lied. To lie and being wrong are two different things.GATOR591957 wrote:
I'm just asking where your analogy was going. I'm looking for the reason we attacked Iraq. If it was because Saddam attacked Kuwait, we already took care of that. Remember the first gulf war. If it was his attacking the Kurds, then why aren't we in Africa. Far more atrocities going on there.Kmarion wrote:
Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)
We were in Africa on a humanitarian mission we lost some brave men and we left. It's not only the US that needs to examine what's going on inf Africa but the entire world. Can you imagine the response if we did go into Africa?
What is the UN doing to help Africa today? <-- Serious question.
If you would could you list specifically the atrocities that are currently going on so I can examine which countries are doing something about them? Everything I dig up seems to be old using google.
I guess to answer your question, the Dems repeated Bush's lie.Kmarion wrote:
The reason we went in is not the point in this topic (I'm not dodging the topic but there are plenty of threads for that). It's the belief he was a threat on both sides. So to say Bush lied is to say the Dem's lied as well. It's a matter of why say it if you don't believe. Going in could be wrong but don't say because we went in we lied. To lie and being wrong are two different things.GATOR591957 wrote:
I'm just asking where your analogy was going. I'm looking for the reason we attacked Iraq. If it was because Saddam attacked Kuwait, we already took care of that. Remember the first gulf war. If it was his attacking the Kurds, then why aren't we in Africa. Far more atrocities going on there.Kmarion wrote:
Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)
We were in Africa on a humanitarian mission we lost some brave men and we left. It's not only the US that needs to examine what's going on inf Africa but the entire world. Can you imagine the response if we did go into Africa?
What is the UN doing to help Africa today? <-- Serious question.
If you would could you list specifically the atrocities that are currently going on so I can examine which countries are doing something about them? Everything I dig up seems to be old using google.
Other way around but yea.GATOR591957 wrote:
I guess to answer your question, the Dems repeated Bush's lie.Kmarion wrote:
The reason we went in is not the point in this topic (I'm not dodging the topic but there are plenty of threads for that). It's the belief he was a threat on both sides. So to say Bush lied is to say the Dem's lied as well. It's a matter of why say it if you don't believe. Going in could be wrong but don't say because we went in we lied. To lie and being wrong are two different things.GATOR591957 wrote:
I'm just asking where your analogy was going. I'm looking for the reason we attacked Iraq. If it was because Saddam attacked Kuwait, we already took care of that. Remember the first gulf war. If it was his attacking the Kurds, then why aren't we in Africa. Far more atrocities going on there.
We were in Africa on a humanitarian mission we lost some brave men and we left. It's not only the US that needs to examine what's going on inf Africa but the entire world. Can you imagine the response if we did go into Africa?
What is the UN doing to help Africa today? <-- Serious question.
If you would could you list specifically the atrocities that are currently going on so I can examine which countries are doing something about them? Everything I dig up seems to be old using google.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
OK... unfortunately the US Gov't (whichever party is majority at the time) has to depend on intellignece provided by humans, and we humans have made some serious mistakes. Were there truly WMDs in Iraq, possibly, even the Dems believed it. But there were other reasons to stop Saddam's regime.
Now I know people are upset that GWB also used genocide as a major reason to invade. And the people who are crying about that are the same people that are crying over the fact that we didn't help stop what happened in Darfur. He's a "bad man" for invading Iraq, but he's even worse for not sending troops into Darfur.
If Clinton had the intelligence when he was in office, he should have done something about it. Not only Iraq, but Bin Laden as well. Does anyone else remember Oliver North telling Senator Al Gore that Bin Laden was evil and that the US should do everything it could to kill him... good job on that one guys!
If the invasion of Iraq was about oil, why am I still paying $2.50 at the pumps? Anyone who still believes that needs to wake up and pull their head out.
And comparing what is happening in Iraq to New Orleans... come on, get an education! Iraq is a combat zone, there are going to be casualties. Yes it's very sad that Katrina did so much devastation, but you have to remember that New Orleans wasn't even hit by the eye of the storm. You seem to have forgotten that Misssissippi was hit, and that Katrina went through Florida before hitting landfall again. But because people in a city that is BELOW SEA LEVEL, who's own city government mis-used funds that should have been going to improving the levee (Maybe we should spend the $$$ on Mardi Gras decorations instead) felt that they were invincible to a storm they knew was coming died, when they had ample time to evacuate? Dude that's just insulting to the people who have to go and serve because it is their DUTY. I'm appalled that you would even try to make that comparison.
And for the record... I did my time in the USAF, I did not serve in the miiddle east, but I did my job to support those that went, those that are there, and those that will be going. As Americans it's what we should do. Right or wrong, we need to stand behind our troops and let them know that we believe in them, and that we want them to do the best job they can as fast as they can so they can get back here where they belong.
EOL
Now I know people are upset that GWB also used genocide as a major reason to invade. And the people who are crying about that are the same people that are crying over the fact that we didn't help stop what happened in Darfur. He's a "bad man" for invading Iraq, but he's even worse for not sending troops into Darfur.
If Clinton had the intelligence when he was in office, he should have done something about it. Not only Iraq, but Bin Laden as well. Does anyone else remember Oliver North telling Senator Al Gore that Bin Laden was evil and that the US should do everything it could to kill him... good job on that one guys!
If the invasion of Iraq was about oil, why am I still paying $2.50 at the pumps? Anyone who still believes that needs to wake up and pull their head out.
And comparing what is happening in Iraq to New Orleans... come on, get an education! Iraq is a combat zone, there are going to be casualties. Yes it's very sad that Katrina did so much devastation, but you have to remember that New Orleans wasn't even hit by the eye of the storm. You seem to have forgotten that Misssissippi was hit, and that Katrina went through Florida before hitting landfall again. But because people in a city that is BELOW SEA LEVEL, who's own city government mis-used funds that should have been going to improving the levee (Maybe we should spend the $$$ on Mardi Gras decorations instead) felt that they were invincible to a storm they knew was coming died, when they had ample time to evacuate? Dude that's just insulting to the people who have to go and serve because it is their DUTY. I'm appalled that you would even try to make that comparison.
And for the record... I did my time in the USAF, I did not serve in the miiddle east, but I did my job to support those that went, those that are there, and those that will be going. As Americans it's what we should do. Right or wrong, we need to stand behind our troops and let them know that we believe in them, and that we want them to do the best job they can as fast as they can so they can get back here where they belong.
EOL
There is nothing confusing here except for the misinformation that you spread.kr@cker wrote:
I'm sorry but WMD's were found, the NIE report was declassified to dispel the rumors which you have just reiterated, and enforcing a peace treaty that was broken for more than a decade is not a BS war, people too often whine about the few months in which Bush was actively trying to piece the intel community back together, and point to the PDB's which, thanks to Jamie Garelick's own policy of buillding walls between itel divisions, could not make a definitive case as to what the threat was as failure to take pre-emptive action while calling the pre-emptive action in Afghanistan and Iraq a wrong move. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
9-11: Intel community flub, right hand didn't know (or wasn't allowed to rather) what the left was doing, a result of clinton era policy making and to some degree political correctness, after all we can't look for muslims when looking for muslim terrorists, now can we
Afghanistan: Breeding ground, supply house, and financial support for terrorists of all stripes
Iraq: enforcement of the terms of surrender agreed after the first gulf war, and had to some degree provided terrorist groups with equipment and training, as Saddam's regiment 99 trained the warlord soldiers of somalia in explosives and the more complex weapon systems
too many people are confusing too many issues, even if you do remove the long range missiles, the warheads and artillery shells capable of carrying nuke/bio/chem payloads, and the several tons of uranium still sitting a few miles south of Baghdad from the equation, WMD's were only one of several reasons for going in
1. Please cite the so-called wmd that were located. Dont talk about them, show them. Link me something other than the imaginary 'mobile weapons labs' or the mustard gas gone bad. Please dont waste my time with that bullshit.
2. The NIE was declassified because Bush was pissy it was leaked. But then somehow after he told us the whole thing would be de-classified, as of 4:00 today it was reported that it WONT be fully declassified, just mainly. In addition Senator Jame Harmon is currently going @ the pentagon because she (a member of the congressional oversight comittee) has been made aware that there is yet ANOTHER version under the 'draft' title so it does not officially exist. Where the two versions are different remains to be seen.
3. '...enforcing a peace treaty that was broken for more than a decade is not a BS war...' You complain about enforcing the No-Fly-Zone. So basically 2700 American soldiers had to die so we were CERTAIN that the mayor of Bahgdad was just that? Go tell that to their families. Their unit members. Another silly point. The last time i checked, the no fly zone WAS being enforced. Any dumbass that wanted to be caught out in the desert when our bird flew over got pwned i believe. And if Bush I didnt want to, why should we listen to his kid? Bush I had a more solid vote...
4. Another thing dummy and yes im being condescending while schooling you....
people too often whine about the few months in which Bush was actively trying to piece the intel community back together, and point to the PDB's which, thanks to Jamie Garelick's own policy of buillding walls between itel divisions, could not make a definitive case as to what the threat was as failure to take pre-emptive action while calling the pre-emptive action in Afghanistan and Iraq a wrong move. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. '
If by piece together you mean demoting the nations top counter-terrorism offical, not following the plan laid out to you by clinton which CALLED for an invasion of Afghanistan but the Repubs said it was a distraction. Fuck, even I said it was...are you man enough to admit you were wrong too? It seemed like clinton was using it as an distraction @ the time. Too bad all the documentation and warplans for afghanistan were on hold because if anything, Clinton wanted to do it RIGHT, not cause his buddy jesus told him to.
2. IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 OR AL QUEDA...or HAD nothing to do. Now it Al queda Al the time because we removed saddam (dont belive i like the guy as some people would have u think) and destabilized the country with NO post war Marshall type plan - see: europe post wwII.
3. If you call a. the partison guy he hired for cia b. giving out medals to people who FAILED us on 9/11 (see: george tenet) and C. ignoring the REAL intel that had been GIVEN to him pre-9/11 trying to piece the intel community together, well i cant even make a decent analogy.
I say all that to say this...you morons out here on the net spreading fud need to stop. And any Real American who doesnt want our name dragged through the mud ANYMORE by these traitorous pussies should speak up with me.
We won't and shouldn't invade. We should just blow those useless pieces of shit off the planet. I see your point though. The only reason we don't do anything about those two countries is because we don't have the world support to attack. Eventually they will need to be delt with. Anyone can see that.GATOR591957 wrote:
By your logic we could say the same right now. Korea is a dangerous country, should we invade? Or just talk about it. Iran is a dangerous country, should we invade? Or just talk about it. Can't have it both ways.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
So let me get this straight...Bubbalo wrote:
Big problems: The Clinton people were all saying that the threat should be taken seriously, not that Iraq should be invaded. The others all had to base their opinions on information which was given to them by the US government, which was trying to convince people they were there.
Are you saying that they were just like, "That is a dangerous country." And then not do anything about it? Does this sound stupid to anyone else? WELLLLL, they were ONLY talking about it. They didn't do anything. That is a SUPER intelligent move there! Lets say someone is a threat to the US and then sit on our asses and have tea...
And your second point also doesn't help much either. The reason that groups like the CIA are in existence is to gain intelligence reguarding other countries and things within the US. Simply saying that they were decieved by the information give be the "US government" is rediculous. If I'm not mistaken, aren't the democrats part of this "government" you speak of? OH WAIT, they aren't because they can't come up with any good ideas to fight terror. Well, your partially right in that aspect. But you can't blame the intelligence, Presidents have been getting intelligence from the CIA and other groups for a long time. Both Democrat and Republican.
Maybe you should organize a democrat CIA...
If by PR you mean making a soft and squishy pad between conflict and resolving it in a politcally correct fashion, No.sergeriver wrote:
PR isn't your strong side, is it?Mr.Pieeater wrote:
Common knowledge? Can your PROVE your "common knowledge"? No, you can't. So its pretty much common knowledge that your common knowledge is crap...Bertster7 wrote:
It is pretty much common knowledge that a lot of the inteligence in the build up to the Iraq war, at least in the UK, was fabricated. The Hutton inquiry exonerated the government, but that's what those sort of inquiries are there for, to absolve responsibility. There were ludicrous claims made and evidence that inteligence was made up to support the case for war. There was some evidence of similar stuff happening in the US as well, but it was never so well publicised as in the UK with the 45 minute bullshit.
There was evidence suggesting Saddam may have had WMDs, probably invoices from when the UK and US sold them to him, there wasn't ever any conclusive evidence.
I don't want to get to far into this because there isn't much evidence to support my claims (certainly not on the US side of things). It does seem very much that WMDs were not the reason for the war but an excuse for it.
I don't know what the real reason for the war was, I doubt it was oil. It probably had more to do with establishing US friendly footholds in the middle east.
@ golgoj4, you might want to do two things before you claim to start schooling people online, first, I recommend not relying on Jon Stewart for up to the minute news briefs, and second, learn to count. I mean, we'll all make some allowances for grammar and spelling on these forums, but 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3? and this after you resort to calling me a dummy. I'm at work on a slow ass line and can't link at the moment, but will do so as soon as possible for your benefit, though since you already mentioned the gas it seems that you already know, and the "but it's old" argument is kinda lame, as I said last time that was brought up, I've got an old rusty degraded knife, wanna bet it still hurts? Your misdirection and ability to glaze over the facts is quite impressive, hoping to intern for George Souros?
1. get back to you later as i said above, though, again, you seem to know already, but let's just say for the sake of argument that there were none, he still claimed to have them and still refused the weapons inspections required by the surrender policy, if you walk into a bank with a back pack full of bacon, but tell everyone it's a bomb, do you think the FBI will just laugh and pat you on the back?
2 so a portion opposing bush's policy gets leaked and that's ok, but the portion that supports it just isn't good enough, have you read it? are you going to? you sound just like the reporters at the Bush/Karzai press confernce that kept beating the dead horse asking them the same question 15 different ways about it, and it was quite humorous when Karzai, a foreigner that doesn't speak english as his primary language lost his boot in their ass when even he got sick of the constant pestering by the NYT and WP weasels. How did you like the press conference? Oh you just waited for the Daily Show highlights. I don't have to make any case hear, the NIE report does it just fine, and I do urge you to at least find a transcript of the Bush/Karzai press conference, just imagine that you're the reporter being "schooled" by the two presidents. Thinking that a report that fucking sensitive in nature is going to be completely declassified is nothing short of naive and the senators pushing for it to be are behaving in a borderline treasonous manner, there's just too much at risk to do so, from intel methods to people's lives, if you don't want to trust the PORTION that is officially released, that's fine, just make sure you treat the PORTION that was leaked the same way.
3. can't link again, but google or wiki (shudder at the thought of recommending wiki, but it should at least have a copy of this) the Iraq War Resolution, you will find that you are grossly oversimplifying the enforcement of said treaty, there are more than a few UN resolutions making the case and even granting the US permission to enforce it's own treaty, though I hate to reference those (678, 687, 1441, and another I can't remember offhand, I'll add it later) due to the UN's impotence as a whole. To think that a no-fly zone is enough to call for such action is again naive.
4. you're a big stinky poo-poo head
when administrations change so do the staff of all related agencies, if you can show me one instance of clinton making the RIGHT decision tactically concerning anything go right ahead, just remember that Haiti's a shithole, Mogadishu's a shithole, Kosovo's a shithole, NK got the light water reactor and missile tech direct from Bill, as did China
5. (or back to 2 in your case) I don't recall anyone saying it had anything to do with 9/11, but yes when the tanks rolled in there were abandoned T-camps all over the place, and don't forget that Saddam himself pledged, what, $50,000 was it, to the families of suicide bombers and such, of course some T groups also opposed Saddam for his secular rule, but he did have vested interests with others, mostly in northeast africa, as I said, in somalia and such
6. (or 3 if you prefer) go read up on Jamie Garelick's memo, I don't think Jon Stewart or Bill Maher covered it much, and remember that Bush met with the directors of the FBI, CIA, and NSA more in his first year than Clinton had in his entire presidency
you really didn't say much other than a few talking points that can be gleaned from moveon.org
edit: added to point 1, and meant to say "a foreigner that doesn't speak english as his primary language" @ Karzai
1. get back to you later as i said above, though, again, you seem to know already, but let's just say for the sake of argument that there were none, he still claimed to have them and still refused the weapons inspections required by the surrender policy, if you walk into a bank with a back pack full of bacon, but tell everyone it's a bomb, do you think the FBI will just laugh and pat you on the back?
2 so a portion opposing bush's policy gets leaked and that's ok, but the portion that supports it just isn't good enough, have you read it? are you going to? you sound just like the reporters at the Bush/Karzai press confernce that kept beating the dead horse asking them the same question 15 different ways about it, and it was quite humorous when Karzai, a foreigner that doesn't speak english as his primary language lost his boot in their ass when even he got sick of the constant pestering by the NYT and WP weasels. How did you like the press conference? Oh you just waited for the Daily Show highlights. I don't have to make any case hear, the NIE report does it just fine, and I do urge you to at least find a transcript of the Bush/Karzai press conference, just imagine that you're the reporter being "schooled" by the two presidents. Thinking that a report that fucking sensitive in nature is going to be completely declassified is nothing short of naive and the senators pushing for it to be are behaving in a borderline treasonous manner, there's just too much at risk to do so, from intel methods to people's lives, if you don't want to trust the PORTION that is officially released, that's fine, just make sure you treat the PORTION that was leaked the same way.
3. can't link again, but google or wiki (shudder at the thought of recommending wiki, but it should at least have a copy of this) the Iraq War Resolution, you will find that you are grossly oversimplifying the enforcement of said treaty, there are more than a few UN resolutions making the case and even granting the US permission to enforce it's own treaty, though I hate to reference those (678, 687, 1441, and another I can't remember offhand, I'll add it later) due to the UN's impotence as a whole. To think that a no-fly zone is enough to call for such action is again naive.
4. you're a big stinky poo-poo head
when administrations change so do the staff of all related agencies, if you can show me one instance of clinton making the RIGHT decision tactically concerning anything go right ahead, just remember that Haiti's a shithole, Mogadishu's a shithole, Kosovo's a shithole, NK got the light water reactor and missile tech direct from Bill, as did China
5. (or back to 2 in your case) I don't recall anyone saying it had anything to do with 9/11, but yes when the tanks rolled in there were abandoned T-camps all over the place, and don't forget that Saddam himself pledged, what, $50,000 was it, to the families of suicide bombers and such, of course some T groups also opposed Saddam for his secular rule, but he did have vested interests with others, mostly in northeast africa, as I said, in somalia and such
6. (or 3 if you prefer) go read up on Jamie Garelick's memo, I don't think Jon Stewart or Bill Maher covered it much, and remember that Bush met with the directors of the FBI, CIA, and NSA more in his first year than Clinton had in his entire presidency
you really didn't say much other than a few talking points that can be gleaned from moveon.org
edit: added to point 1, and meant to say "a foreigner that doesn't speak english as his primary language" @ Karzai
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-09-28 08:55:33)
isn't "democrat hypocrisy" (sp?, something don't look right) redundant?
BTW did you forget this ?PRiMACORD wrote:
Did they act on that bad info?Kmarion wrote:
Ok it's ok for Clinton to have bad info but not Bush?sergeriver wrote:
As long as the people in the video at that time had bad information, then you can't call them hypocrite.
No.
President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq… Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors …" ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e … 12-16.html
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-28 13:33:54)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
democrat hypocrisy is an oxymoron. j/k
Both parties are F'ed up.. but I'd prefer dems over nutty rights anyday
Both parties are F'ed up.. but I'd prefer dems over nutty rights anyday
lol.. fair enough.Spearhead wrote:
democrat hypocrisy is an oxymoron. j/k
Both parties are F'ed up.. but I'd prefer dems over nutty rights anyday
Dems just seem to flip flop more to me.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Politicians flip flop. Period. All you who think that Dems represent one thing and Repubs represent another need to look at the reality of American Politics.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
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.
Yea but its still fun to point it out.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Politicians flip flop. Period. All you who think that Dems represent one thing and Repubs represent another need to look at the reality of American Politics.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
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.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Off topic but.......... Talk about flip flop. "Bin Laden is our #1 priority" 2 yrs. later when asked about Bin Laden, "I'm not really concern with him" both statements by GWB.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. fair enough.Spearhead wrote:
democrat hypocrisy is an oxymoron. j/k
Both parties are F'ed up.. but I'd prefer dems over nutty rights anyday
Dems just seem to flip flop more to me.
Well i think at that time Bin Laden was a top priority because he was actively involved in the operations of Al Queda. Like most I think taking out Bin Laden would do little to affect the terror network. to say he is not concerned with him is kinda weird though. When was this?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So, Gator, by that logic...
Your top priority is exactly the same as it was two years ago, and two years ago it was the same as four years ago, and four years ago....etc etc.
Or perhaps Dub isn't worried about Bin Laden because he took care of the problem 2 years ago?
Great point...I'm going to right that down.
Your top priority is exactly the same as it was two years ago, and two years ago it was the same as four years ago, and four years ago....etc etc.
Or perhaps Dub isn't worried about Bin Laden because he took care of the problem 2 years ago?
Great point...I'm going to right that down.
I think specifically why Africa hasn't been a priority has to do with the impact Iraq has proven to have on the region. Note that I do not agree with NOT being as involved in Africa as we should be. But arguably (and unfortunately it's selfish) what happens in Africa has less of an impact then what happens in the Middle East, and therefore has a higher priority.GATOR591957 wrote:
I'm just asking where your analogy was going. I'm looking for the reason we attacked Iraq. If it was because Sadaam attacked Kuwait, we already took care of that. Remember the first gulf war. If it was his attacking the Kurds, then why aren't we in Africa. Far more attrocities going on there.Kmarion wrote:
Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)
Of course I wish it didn't involve troops everytime...