BF2S Forums Colin Powell endorse Obama

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And how is that? Because it shoots your theory in the ass?

Not even close.

FEOS wrote:

Already answered those questions.

No you haven't, your argument is weak and spurious.

FEOS wrote:

And you know that how? Oh, that's right...you don't.

I dunno, maybe Vladimir Putin might be able to help:

'Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet.
This fact has also been supported by the information which has been despatched by the CIA to the US Congress.

We do have apprehensions that such weapons might exist on the territory of Iraq and this is precisely why we want to see to it that United Nations inspectors should travel there."

News conference with then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, October 2002 '
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002 … policy.uk1

So, they reckoned there was no actual evidence, just an 'apprehension' and the UN inspectors should continue their work.

So now we trust Putin implicitly? Why would he want anything to happen to Saddam...he was providing Saddam all of his illegal military hardware.

Come back when you have something to actually support your arguments.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So now we trust Putin implicitly? Why would he want anything to happen to Saddam...he was providing Saddam all of his illegal military hardware.

The publicy stated position of the Russian President was Russia had no credible intel to suggest Iraq had WMD. This supports my argument that the Russians reckoned the intel was bollocks.

Thats the information you asked for, there it is in black and white, the Russians turned out to be correct and yes I believe Putin over Duhbya, who you may have noticed is currently rated lower than Nixon after Watergate.
I'll bet Putin had a more detailed understanding of the CIA files than Duhbya

I certainly believe Putin over Duhbya, who had a longstanding agenda to invade Iraq and was basically looking for an excuse.
Using 9/11 as an excuse to advance his agenda is about as cynical as you can get IMO.

Still, Duhbya is entering the final few months of his eight year lame duck Presidency, I expect the truth will out eventually.

Yet again, you confuse the decision to invade with the information that supported Iraq having an active WMD program.

I guess, by your "logic", that Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and others all had an agenda to invade Iraq, as well. And...yet again...9/11 was not the impetus for the Iraq invasion. No matter how hard you try to force that linkage, it was not part of the calculus.

Approval ratings, lame duckness, and every other random tidbit you can throw in have zero to do with the topic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Britain went along with the US, as did Spain, as they saw it as an advantage to stick with the US, that whole 'you're with us or against us' thing.
And I don't remember France or Germany invading Iraq.

My God. How slow do I have to type for you to get it?! Go back and read what I actually wrote.

I wasn't talking about the decision to invade...I was talking about the intelligence that pointed to Saddam having an active WMD program.

It's like trying to explain football to a woman or something.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

9/11 was not the impetus for the Iraq invasion

Yes it was, Duhbya didn't want those responsible for 9/11 have access to Saddam's supposed WMD.
Remember:
- The bogus WMD
- The bogus link between Saddam and AQ

9/11 was not the impetus for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam's suspected active WMD program was. Keep pounding away on that drum...it won't make what you say any less inaccurate.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyway, back to the point you're dodging, Russia didn't believe the 'intel' and was proven right.
The point about the approval ratings is Duhbya is less believable than Putin, then and now.

I'm not dodging anything...Putin had a vested interest in Saddam staying in power. Why would he corroborate intel that would lead to Saddam's detriment, regardless of what he actually had?

If we're going to go with approval ratings (then and now, apparently) as an indicator of truthfulness, then GWB was FAR more truthful than Putin back then. I mean, he had a high approval rating back then, so it means he must have been telling the truth, right?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I wasn't talking about the decision to invade...I was talking about the intelligence that pointed to Saddam having an active WMD program.

Hey, me too. The UK govt 'fixed' their intel also.

Only not so much:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And I don't remember France or Germany invading Iraq.

Fairly definitive that you were talking about the decision to invade. The use of the word "invading" kind of leads one down that road...

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

9/11 was not the impetus for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam's suspected active WMD program was.

They are closely linked, and linked by statements made by your soon to be gone Presiduhnt.
And Saddams supposed WMD were not an issue until immediately after 9/11 now were they?
We have Powell and Condi both on record pre-9/11 saying Saddam categorically has no WMD capability, right after 9/11 he has the greatest stock of WMD the world has ever seen.

Of course. I suppose this never happened, right?

Hyperbole doesn't get truer the more you repeat it, btw.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Go work it out for yourself, or I can find all the links again if you like

Why don't you go ahead and do that, mkay?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm not dodging anything...Putin had a vested interest in Saddam staying in power.

And Duhbya had a vested interest in Saddam not staying in power
- Getting US hands on the oil
- All the money the various Republican donors were going to make in the war and rebuilding
- Reshaping the ME in a way better suited to the PNAC and Israel
Strange you always assume everyone else has hidden agendas and venal self-interest, but not your precious POTUS or anyone part of the Republican administration.

Again, you are confusing the intelligence that pointed to Iraq having an active program and the policy decision to invade Iraq. Criticize the policy decision all you want. The intel is a separate issue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I look forward to all your future tin-foil hat theories about Obama.

I'm fairly sure I don't spout off tinfoil hat conspiracy theories around here. But that was a cute attempt.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why would he corroborate intel that would lead to Saddam's detriment, regardless of what he actually had?

Maybe he just read the intel and saw that it was total bollocks, as anyone watching Powell's UN presentation would have done?

Or not. Interesting that you view everything Bush says or does with immeasurable skepticism and cynicism...but not the former head of the KGB.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-05 16:35:50)

whats a zoomie?

I got money on dilbert.  I bet FEOS is a nerd and looks like professor Frink.

FEOS wrote:

Again, you are confusing the intelligence that pointed to Iraq having an active program and the policy decision to invade Iraq. Criticize the policy decision all you want. The intel is a separate issue.

They're not, they're wrapped up together.
The character of the intel changed totally right after 9/11 and Duhbya had decided to invade.
Before 9/11 the Bush admin line was Saddam was in his box, sanctions were working, Iraq had no WMD.
After 9/11 it all changed. Please explain how intel can change overnight from saying one thing - which is well-researched and correct - to say the exact opposite - which is also wrong.
Someone somewhere did something.

FEOS wrote:

Or not. Interesting that you view everything Bush says or does with immeasurable skepticism and cynicism...but not the former head of the KGB.

Between a totalitarian despot who has devoted his life to the work of the devil, or Vladimir Putin, I find the latter more credible.

GS wrote:

you fuckers need to meet up in person and fight.

I'm a coward, not a fighter.

GS wrote:

money on the zoomie.

He'd have to catch me to beat me.

Method wrote:

whats a zoomie?
I got money on dilbert.  I bet FEOS is a nerd and looks like professor Frink.

Zoomie is grunt slang for anyone in the Air Force, esp. fighter pilots.
TBH if anyone here is a Professor Frink lookalike I think it would be me. I picked 'Dilbert_X' for a reason.

I had FEOS pegged as a Colonel Hap Hapablap lookalike.


But then I did a Google images search for 'FEOS' and whaddaya know?
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=e … &gbv=2

I like this one the best.


(This is not a personal attack - I didn't pick FEOS's handle for him, nor did I spam Google Images with pics of goofy geeks)

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-06 02:04:45)

so what does FEOS mean anyway?

Last edited by m3thod (2008-11-06 02:51:12)

FEOS wrote:

It's that decision that you have issue with, and rightly so.

No I have issues with both.
Perverting national agencies to suit your agenda is what despots do, and thats what Duhbya did.
Its a very slippery and dangerous slope from this to totalitarianism.
Powell sold his soul to facilitate this, and rightly has lost credibility as a result.

I recently discovered 'Bobo', the name of my cat, means 'clown' or 'silly fool' in Spanish.
As you can imagine he's not best pleased.

.Sup wrote:

Why the fuck are you discussing each other now?

Its some form of internet Stockholm syndrome, and FEOS has it bad.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-06 04:06:22)

FEOS wrote:

And AGAIN. You have zero facts to back up your assertion that national agencies were "perverted...to suit (Bush's) agenda".

I have lots of facts, I'll get out a fresh roll of tin-foil and do a whole new thread.

FEOS wrote:

So now your cat talks to you? Why am I not surprised?

Interesting, I tell you my cat is displeased and you conclude I have a talking cat. Is there a train of logic there? I can't see it.
A 'listening' cat might have made sense, but not a talking one.
Clearly you've never had a cat, nor been briefed on cats, but still you jump to erroneous conclusions based on who knows what.
Cats can register displeasure in many ways and Bobo is no exception - being generally huffy, gnawing my arm more than usual, 'forgetting' to record the X-Files, that sort of thing.

Duh the displeasure started when we told hom what his name meant.
Clearly your cats failed to train you properly.

Son of Sam was a pansy.

You know, a sense of humour would do you some good.

According to you.
But you're right, this is D+ST

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-08 04:05:18)