Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 121 to 137 of 137
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Were you the one who posted that peanut-butter-dog-licking-genital slam on Woof in that thread a couple weeks ago that got deleted by the mods?
    no, i wasn't but now i now feel like i've missed something i shake my fist at the mods
  2. #122  
    you do know that the CIA blanked out the names of the American companies who the vouchers were offered to don't you? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass-house.
    Animo et Fide
  3. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    ah new talking points (oil for food), how refreshing, the old ones (WMD) were getting boring [/url]
    Ah yes, the latest DNC talking point, "Bush just changed the rationale for the war to the Oil for Food program because they didn't find any WMDs". Of course, what Bush was really doing was making the point that Saddam was bribing all of Kerry's favorite world leaders in order to facilitate the reconstitution of his WMD program after sanctions collapsed.
    Talldog
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    Ah yes, the latest DNC talking point
    I think the oil for food scandal is terrible and it undercuts the credibility of the UN, no doubt. It is certainly important to investigate this, I agree.

    But I do disagree with you that this is a DNC tactic. To me it seems clear that using this issue to as a rationale for war in Iraq is certainly a RNC strategy here, which is being sold through the right wing press:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

    http://www.rightnation.us/forums/ind...howtopic=53394

    http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100404c.cfm

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2528-7849r.htm

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133696,00.html

    etc.........
  5. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    But I do disagree with you that this is a DNC tactic. To me it seems clear that using this issue to as a rationale for war in Iraq is certainly a RNC strategy here, which is being sold through the right wing press:
    I followed every one of your links and read the stories, and I'm not sure that I understand your point. I don't think it's in any way partisan or dishonest to point out the following:

    1. That one of the Democrats' main talking points all along has been that the Bush administration didn't go the extra mile to get the broader support from the world community.

    2. That by "broader support of the world community", they specifically mean approval from France, Germany, and Russia.

    3. That the administration did indeed go to great lengths with the last resolution, Powell's and Bush's speeched to the U.N., etc. stretching out over several months.

    4. And most importantly, that they were never going to get the "broader support of the world community" because those countries we're being bribed by Saddam.

    In fact, I would argue that it is the left-wing press that is being partisan and dishonest by trying to bury a lot of these details.
    Talldog
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    I followed every one of your links and read the stories, and I'm not sure that I understand your point.
    the point I was making was that republicans seem to me to be very disciplined at expressing a consistent group of talking points after getting cues from their supporting media. The examples I cited just show the result of this latest flurry of talking points. I was not trying to be confrontational, here, but rather just trying to point out this talking point phenomena and how easy it is to get sucked up into it, especially if you do not think about the issues but just parrot back what you are told (Democrats too). Obviously when you think about the issues and come up with your own opinions, this discussion does not apply.

    As far as your other points, they do make sense but here is where I differ with you. I feel that the non-military solutions which were supported by the UN and the world, were actually effective in that Saddam did not have any WMD, no chemicals no active nuke program, he was in no position to threaten us or his neighbors. We had him bottled up very well, so that he was no threat at all to us. And I would argue that his connection to al queda has always been greatly exaggerated and that is finally coming to light too. I think we could have pressed him into even a tighter box, without going to war. So I would argue that any case for war would have been flawed, regardless of the Oil for Food abuse, and regardless of what France, Germany or Russia thought. War is something that you do when your country or your Ally's country is threatened, and you only do it as a last resort. Neither criteria were satisfied prior to invading Iraq. In fact if we had not invaded Iraq, we could have used our resources much more effectivley at combating terrorism and stopping nuclear proliferation.
  7. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    We had him bottled up very well, so that he was no threat at all to us.
    I have to take issue with this. The sanctions regime was collapsing, being undermined by the same countries that were taking bribes. Not to mention that Saddam made sure that the sanctions, such as they were, caused as much suffering as possible among ordinary Iraqi citizens, increasing the political pressure to end them. In fact, if you do a little research, you will discover that many of the same entities (like the NY Times editorial page) that are now arguing that we could have kept the sanctions going were arguing the exact opposite before the war. In other words, hypocrites.

    Here's a link to the entire Duelfer report. Anyone who gets all of their news from the mainstream media probably hasn't heard 90% of what's in it. He certainly doesn't think that Saddam was "no threat to us at all".

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
    Talldog
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    many of the same entities (like the NY Times editorial page) that are now arguing that we could have kept the sanctions going were arguing the exact opposite before the war. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
    I am not trying to defend anyone's viewpoint but my own, and if you feel the NY Times editorial page was hypocritical, great.

    I've seen the Duelfer report, and in it, he said that the sanctions were having a devastating effect on Saddam's regime and overcoming them was Saddam's primary objective since 1991. Duelfer said that sanctions, a military buildup, diplomatic isolation, and dropping revenue streams, forced the regime to accept weapons inspectors back in 2003. Sounds like the sanctions were pretty effective to me, even with the Oil for food cheating. He speculated that the effects of the sanctions could not be sustained, but this remains unproven. If we pushed further in this direction, I do not feel Sadaan would ever have been enough of a threat to justify going to war. I guess I have a higher threshold to going to war than President Bush has, again my criteria are a threat us or our allies or if there is no alternative. There is nothing in the Duelfer report that I have read that convinces me otherwise of this. I think many a person reading this could easily come up with the same conclusion, although I respect your opinion.
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I am not trying to defend anyone's viewpoint but my own, and if you feel the NY Times editorial page was hypocritical, great.

    I've seen the Duelfer report, and in it, he said that the sanctions were having a devastating effect on Saddam's regime and overcoming them was Saddam's primary objective since 1991. Duelfer said that sanctions, a military buildup, diplomatic isolation, and dropping revenue streams, forced the regime to accept weapons inspectors back in 2003. Sounds like the sanctions were pretty effective to me, even with the Oil for food cheating. He speculated that the effects of the sanctions could not be sustained, but this remains unproven. If we pushed further in this direction, I do not feel Sadaan would ever have been enough of a threat to justify going to war. I guess I have a higher threshold to going to war than President Bush has, again my criteria are a threat us or our allies or if there is no alternative. There is nothing in the Duelfer report that I have read that convinces me otherwise of this. I think many a person reading this could easily come up with the same conclusion, although I respect your opinion.
    It's interesting how even after your reading of Duelfer's report you didnt reach the same conclusions that he did.

    "On Wednesday, Sen. John Warner asked Duelfer if he thought the world is better off with Saddam out of power. "I'm an analyst, and I realize I'm in a political world right now," Duelfer began.

    But Warner pressed him further, and Duelfer went on: "But I have to agree. Analytically, the world is better off."

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=10/8
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. #130  
    I think we could have been safer had we acted differently, but we are actually in a more dangerous situation now. Invading Iraq distracted us from going after al queda. And the longer we occupy Iraq, we inflame more moderate Arabs to become radical, giving bin Ladin more recruits and support. And with our distraction with Iraq - it is quite obvious, North Korea and Iran see an opportunity to promote their own nuclear ambitions.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/08/2004 at 05:26 PM.
  11. #131  
    world is better off with Saddam out of power
    can be applied to dozens more leaders in dozens of other countries, none of which the neocons seem to care about. What's the diff with Iraq?
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think we could have been safer had we acted differently, but we are actually in a more dangerous situation now. Invading Iraq distracted us from going after al queda. And the longer we occupy Iraq, we inflame more moderate Arabs to become radical, giving bin Ladin more recruits and support. And with our distraction with Iraq - it is quite obvious, North Korea and Iran see an opportunity to promote their own nuclear ambitions.
    If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power; that al-Zarqawi guy would have an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq; the UN’s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied, the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World, in Libya, would still be running along with a nuclear weapons plant. Both are now shut down. What do you think the terrorists would be doing with the “world community” afraid to make a move? Dont you think that Saddam figured that all his bribed friends would keep the US in line? I certainly don’t agree with every one of Bush’s domestic policies, but I do not trust Kerry to protect our country, because I plain old just dont trust him.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #133  
    Like him or not, Bush stands for his principles and tries to do the right thing. Kerry, it seems, tries instead to do what's best for Kerry at the time. That's why he says one thing to someone, and a completely opposite thing to someone else a short time later.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  14. #134  
    that al-Zarqawi guy would have an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq;
    Puleez! We owned Norther and Southern Iraq and nothing would have happened that we didn't want to happen. Secondly, If al-Zarqawi did have an al-Qaeda army in Northern Iraq, there would either be conflict between them and the Hussein/Baathists in Central Iraq or The Turkish gov't to the North or both.

    the UN’s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied
    As was happening before the Bush admin ordered the UN out. As evidenced by reports, Iraq was in compliance.

    the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World, in Libya, would still be running along with a nuclear weapons plant.
    I believe Libya was ready to get out of the manufacture of chem weapons and took the opportunity to bargain.

    What do you think the terrorists would be doing with the “world community” afraid to make a move?
    We made a move, which I supported, Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq pulled troops away from completing the mission on the group which organized 9-11 allowing them to escape.

    I do not trust Kerry to protect our country, because I plain old just dont trust him.
    I don't trust an administration that lied to me about the need to invade a foreign country.

    Like him or not, Bush stands for his principles and tries to do the right thing.
    Bush has no principles, he's managing the goals of his administration, mostly made up of members of Project for a New American Century who had plans to invade and occupy Iraq WELL before 9-11.

    Do some research before you drink the kool-aid kids.

    On another note, I don't know how anyone who considers themselves a Republican could support the Patriot Act.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    No-one doubts 9/11 warranted a strong response, the doubt is whether Iraq was related in any way at all to the fight against terrorism. Nothing Bush or Blair has said so far has convinced me - especially since it's been demonstrated that their intelligence was faulty, or worse misrepresented. As far as the first Iraq war goes I seem to recall some cynicism around at the time but I was only 14 so I was just excited by it. It seemed fairly clear cut at the time, but it has since emerged that Bush Snr's diplomat told Saddam's diplomat that the US wouldn't be bothered if he invaded. It's not as clear cut now is it?
    please supply a link for the story claiming bush sr`s diplomat stated this.
  16. #136  
    I believe the poster is referring to April Glaspie:

    From the Christian Science Monitor
  17. #137  
    Here's a humorous take on flip flops.

    http://seanbonner.com/flipflop/
    "Do the Chickens have large talons?" Napoleon Dynamite
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567

Posting Permissions