Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Believe me I do not disagree with you at all about NK, but Clinton followed Carter's lead in appeasement instead of hardlining it with NK. NK then just walked all over them thumbing their noses at us. This then lead a challenging diplomatic situation as China was then in a position to help NK and Pakistan with their Nuke programs. In that situation NK now already had nukes and how much can we go after them without getting China all revved up is a certainly a fine line to walk.

    Interesting. Yes, the Clinton administration tried the bribery method of keeping the NK's in line. The Bush adminstration certainly tried the bullying method and "cold shoulder" treatment but in the end it seems to me the recent deal reached has reverted back to something more similar to the Clinton policy of "rewards for good behaviour". But I admit to not knowing the details of the latest "treaty" that both sides will break eventually.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Believe me I do not disagree with you at all about NK, but Clinton followed Carter's lead in appeasement instead of hardlining it with NK. NK then just walked all over them thumbing their noses at us. This then lead a challenging diplomatic situation as China was then in a position to help NK and Pakistan with their Nuke programs. In that situation NK now already had nukes and how much can we go after them without getting China all revved up is a certainly a fine line to walk.

    Iran yes was more known to be more involved in terrorist activities at the time, but no hint at a massive Nuke program at the time. It would have been even a harder sell than Iraq. But even if we had stayed focus on Afghanistan until we knew about Iran. Then we proceeded on the same course with Iran as we had with Iraq, we would be in a worse boat now then we currently are in Iraq. Iran and Syria & Lebanon have closer ties and support than any of them did with Iraq. There is a good chance that they might have stepped in and could have been a fight against 3 countries. Either way, openly supported or behind the scenes, we would be facing a resistance potentially much larger than than the terrorists forces we face in Iraq today. And we still wouldn't know the truth about Saddam's programs in the middle of all of this. Even though we now know Saddam did not have active programs, we do know without a doubt from retrieved docs and Saddam's own testimony he had solidified plans to re-initiate a nuke & bio & chem programs as soon as the attention was off him and/or some of the sanctions were eased off a bit.
    Your assessment is certainly fair. My feeling is that so much energy and resources were directed to the case against Saddam that threat assessments about these other countries seems to have "fallen by the side".

    I agree lots of the known intelligence at the time seemed to support the notion of WMD in Iraq, however, more time may have allowed for additional intelligence gathering since Iraq was "contained" at the time.

    Regardless of how we got there, whether we agree or disagree, we are there and now the job needs to be finished.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Regardless of how we got there, whether we agree or disagree, we are there and now the job needs to be finished.
    So what does that mean? What constitutes "finished"? Will it be a democracy or theocracy? Even if it is a democracy how can we trust that they will fight terrorism and extremism? It seems to me they all voted and we all were full of pride at how much they loved democracy - and then they turned around and have been driving IEDs up our **** ever since.

    Will it be three different countries at war with one another for another millenium? How do we define success in Iraq? I'd love to know as I've yet to hear any semblence of a plan from Bush on this other that pre-written rhetoric about how "we'll stand down when Iraqi's can stand up".
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Regardless of how we got there, whether we agree or disagree, we are there and now the job needs to be finished.
    Such is the party-line, regardless of your intent. There is no finishing the 'd-up job without a complete restructuring.

    What must happen is a world-wide cleanup of Bush's mess so that an integrated, forward-thinking war against those who may become US enemies can be carried out.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'd be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there weren't so many ex-Bush officials (Paul O'Neil, David Kuo, Richard Clark, George Tenet, former Generals, etc. etc.) who all seem think they were fixated on invading Iraq. But you know what? That is what an investigation will bare out for all to see and if they have nothing to hide they should be willing to tell the Dems, "bring it on".
    Their fixation on invading Iraq is consistent with their belief that he had WMD.

    As for an investigation, there's nothing fraudulent to investigate. It's just going to be a public show of criticism of the Administration's interpretation of intelligence.

    What part was incorrect and what is your source?
    The part where he says he debunked the Niger story.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005375
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm

    Most of the world believed us back when we had credibility since few have the intelligence gathering capabilities that the US has. Now a days....not so much.
    I don't think Russia and France depended on us for intelligence on Iraq. They came to their own conclusions. Also, Saddam's history with WMD and his defiance of UN inspectors was public knowledge.


    Probably not. But the net of it is they look more right than we do in this whole fiasco because they were right and we were wrong. But none of that matters anyway since the they (and the rest of the world) wanted inspections to continue and had they continued they would have concluded that the WMDs were not there or they'd still be looking. And if Saddam would have grown tired of the inspectors and miscalculated (again) we would have been in a stronger position to act militarily.
    Or he would still be defying weapons inspectors today. And we would have passed 20 UN Resolutions. And he'd still be exploiting Oil for Food. And Iran and North Korea would be enboldened by this. And Lybia would still be working on its nuclear program. And we would be in the same position militarily, with France, Russia, and China, and their supporters, opposing any military action.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Interesting. Yes, the Clinton administration tried the bribery method of keeping the NK's in line. The Bush adminstration certainly tried the bullying method and "cold shoulder" treatment but in the end it seems to me the recent deal reached has reverted back to something more similar to the Clinton policy of "rewards for good behaviour". But I admit to not knowing the details of the latest "treaty" that both sides will break eventually.
    The Clinton bribe didn't work because we had no leverage.

    Bush tried isolation, and that worked to get them back to the table. The point of the six-party talks was that they have no problem breaking promises to us, but it'll be more difficult for them to break promises to China and, to a lesser extent, Russia.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Their fixation on invading Iraq is consistent with their belief that he had WMD.
    Their belief preceded the election.

    As for an investigation, there's nothing fraudulent to investigate.
    Could this statement be any more oxymoronic?

    The part where he says he debunked the Niger story.
    You mean the laughably falsified documents/evidence that Britain intel fell for?

    Also, Saddam's history with WMD
    Halabja?

    Or he would still be defying weapons inspectors today. And we would have passed 20 UN Resolutions. And he'd still be exploiting Oil for Food. And Iran and North Korea would be enboldened by this. And Lybia would still be working on its nuclear program. And we would be in the same position militarily, with France, Russia, and China, and their supporters, opposing any military action.
    And we'd have 3300 more uniformed military troops alive with no further harm done to the US's international integrity.
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Their fixation on invading Iraq is consistent with their belief that he had WMD.
    Not sure how their fixation - which led to poor judgement and possible "embellishing" - is any more morally justified when in the end they were dead wrong. Jeffrey Dahlmer had a fixation with eating his victims but that doesn't make it morally justifiable behaviour.

    As for an investigation, there's nothing fraudulent to investigate.
    And you know there is no fraud exactly how?? Have you already done the investigating or are we to just take them at the word?

    It's just going to be a public show of criticism of the Administration's interpretation of intelligence.
    So? It's a colossal failure by any measure - why shouldn't "we the people" know how these idiots think so we can learn by it. Checks and balances. Oversight. Novel concepts to Bush up until recently. It's a beautiful thing for a democracy though and I for one cannot wait to hear more.

    OK. I don't trust either link as a verifiable sources of independent research but I agree Wilson lied about certain things so I can accept your position that the Bushies may have dismissed his intel. But the ex-CIA agents still said the NIE report was fraudulent and I'd still like to know how fraudulent and who authorized the defrauding.

    I don't think Russia and France depended on us for intelligence on Iraq. They came to their own conclusions.
    I was referring to other countries with lesser means.

    Also, Saddam's history with WMD and his defiance of UN inspectors was public knowledge.
    Yup it sure was. Probably how we got so many resolutions passed to begin with.

    Or he would still be defying weapons inspectors today. And we would have passed 20 UN Resolutions. And he'd still be exploiting Oil for Food. And Iran and North Korea would be enboldened by this. And Lybia would still be working on its nuclear program. And we would be in the same position militarily, with France, Russia, and China, and their supporters, opposing any military action.
    Ahh, so this is a victory for us then? Interesting perpective. Or pure conjecture since we'll never know if letting the inspectors finish would have resulted in a different historical trajectory.
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The Clinton bribe didn't work because we had no leverage.
    Nope. It's because it was Clinton. C'mon you know that.

    Bush tried isolation, and that worked to get them back to the table.
    Really. Funny, I thought it might be the whole "detonating a nuclear weapon thing" (albeit poorly) that got us rethinking Bush's policy of "ignore them and they might go away".

    The point of the six-party talks was that they have no problem breaking promises to us, but it'll be more difficult for them to break promises to China and, to a lesser extent, Russia.
    Got the point of six-party talks and generally agree with the premise. I do think we could have done more sooner than later with side-bar sessions to move things forward faster. But in the end, we gambled for 6 years and we really showed them by waiting them out....now they have nukes!

    Whether or not this version of a treaty will work is yet to be judged. My guess....not so much. NK is a serious threat that we as a country, across party lines and generations, have seriously frigged up. We have a whack job with nukes and no natural resources but his nukes to sell once he depetes the initial thrust of US give-aways to apease him.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Not sure how their fixation - which led to poor judgement and possible "embellishing" - is any more morally justified when in the end they were dead wrong. Jeffrey Dahlmer had a fixation with eating his victims but that doesn't make it morally justifiable behaviour.
    It shows it's not fraud.

    And you know there is no fraud exactly how?? Have you already done the investigating or are we to just take them at the word?
    Because they believed.

    So? It's a colossal failure by any measure - why shouldn't "we the people" know how these idiots think so we can learn by it. Checks and balances. Oversight. Novel concepts to Bush up until recently. It's a beautiful thing for a democracy though and I for one cannot wait to hear more.
    Incompetence<>fraud.


    OK. I don't trust either link as a verifiable sources of independent research but I agree Wilson lied about certain things so I can accept your position that the Bushies may have dismissed his intel. But the ex-CIA agents still said the NIE report was fraudulent and I'd still like to know how fraudulent and who authorized the defrauding.
    And I just saw on Tucker Carlson another guy said that the forged Niger documents can be traced back to Cheney, but he refused to give evidence. I look forward to seeing the evidence.

    Ahh, so this is a victory for us then? Interesting perpective. Or pure conjecture since we'll never know if letting the inspectors finish would have resulted in a different historical trajectory.
    Just pointing out that it wouldn't necessarily have been all peaches and roses had we let Saddam put us off.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Nope. It's because it was Clinton. C'mon you know that.
    I guess I don't hate Clinton as much as you do. He did a couple things right.

    Really. Funny, I thought it might be the whole "detonating a nuclear weapon thing" (albeit poorly) that got us rethinking Bush's policy of "ignore them and they might go away".
    Bush's policy has been "isolate and pray for collapse." The nuclear testing allowed the US to get UN sanctions passed which isolated them even more. That, along with the US actions against their Macao bankers, got their attention pretty quick. The nuclear test also spurred China to put increasing pressure on North Korea as well.

    Got the point of six-party talks and generally agree with the premise. I do think we could have done more sooner than later with side-bar sessions to move things forward faster. But in the end, we gambled for 6 years and we really showed them by waiting them out....now they have nukes!

    Whether or not this version of a treaty will work is yet to be judged. My guess....not so much. NK is a serious threat that we as a country, across party lines and generations, have seriously frigged up. We have a whack job with nukes and no natural resources but his nukes to sell once he depetes the initial thrust of US give-aways to apease him.
    The North Korea problem has been there for decades, and it's remained unsolved. I think the "pray for collapse" strategy was one of the better options. The problem was that South Korea opposed that strategy and helped keep them afloat.
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I look forward to seeing the evidence.
    That makes two of us. Hopefully we'll see a a real investigation soon.
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That, along with the US actions against their Macao bankers, got their attention pretty quick.
    The same type of sanctions responsible for the deaths of 1.4 Million in Iraq.

    The problem was that South Korea opposed that strategy and helped keep them afloat.
    ... Placing US troops in South Korea in yet another impossible civil war position. What's that anecdotal definition of insanity again?
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions