Page 11 of 43 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151621 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 845
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The russians and the UN were not saying the "same thing". The russians and the UN were against the Iraq invasion. The Downing memo discusses the need for the Iraq invasion and advance preparations for it.
    They were saying the same thing when it comes to Saddam having WMDs. Now, if the French and the Germans and the Russians had substantial financial interests in Iraq which made it bad business for them to support war, that is another thing.
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Putin and the UN? I am not sure where you are getting at with that.

    Are you trying to link together some unbelieveable conspiracy and then make us defend it?

    As far as the memo is concerned, it simply refers to dealings between Bush and Blair.
    Not a conspiracy in the least. Yes do a Google News search.......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's intelligence agencies and nation's leaders AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs...including England, Russia, Iran, Isreal, and France!

    What makes this hard is that we couldn't believe the lies Saddam was telling about his lies. I mean he lied when he had WMDs and tried to hide them. Then he lied that he had WMDs when he didn't have them (though it was proven with docs recovered and by his own personal testimony that he had plans in the works to get them again). In a post 9/11 world, that is not very smart. It's like standing in a dark alley in NYC and you keep on telling a cop you have gun and you might use it while keeping you hands tucked in your jacket pocket point your finger at the cops. It's just stupid.

    There comes a point (aka after 12 years of deceptions and 18 UN resolutions) when you have to call a bluff, when you have to act on the lies of the leader of a proven hostile country.

    The nature of intelligence is gathering all the facts and making a decision of the possibilities of the outcome of that information. It is extremely rare to have a smoking gun in hand whenever making a decision (cuba missile crisis being the ONLY one in modern warfare history I can recall as the exeception to this rule, besides waiting to be attacked as proof such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 which is least to say counter productive). Yes do a Google News search.......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's inteligence agencies AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs and that is about as close as you can get to that though. Remember that that this was in a time were we were already attacked and know that it will happen again if given half a chance. Given the nature of Saddams continual deceptions he recently admitted to on 7/25/2004 where he purposely tried to give the impression he had WMD until he could finalize his plans and bribes to get WMDs again....and given the strong probability at the time he had direct and established connections to Alq...given the fact that inspections were not working because Saddam admitted to trying to deceive them with a vengance so that we did NOT know he did not have them and more importantly so that Iran did not find out he did not have any....this all has to be considered when analyizing the risk to national security of another homeland attack with either a bio or nuke strike on US soil by waiting until it happend as proof to go after Saddam who was trying his hardest to make it look like he was in a position to do it?

    Clinton was also an important part in the Bush's decision as he had intel from his adminstration that Saddam had nuke and bio WMDs and confirmed that to Bush.

    As far as the memo is concerned I would like to see the chronological order of information being received from other from foriegn nation's intel and CIA's to see the timing of what was really known or even suspected when.

    I realize that hind sight is 20/20. History has proven over and over again that if we knew then what we know now, we could have taken a straighter course. Heck hind sight has showed us that we came within 36 hours of having a nuke strike on US soil if we would have extended the time of signing the surender papers with Japan and Germany at the end of WWII by just 2 days!
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Its not my statement, it comes straight from the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. But what do they know.
    I guess nothing but the falsehoods they are fed from the admin. Cause the 9/11 commision stated otherwise..



    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Again, what makes news is not necesarily what is. I simply read the resolution authorizing the use of force, and saw all these "other" reasons there. If you get all your info from CNN, then you risk losing out.
    Show me somewhere that Bush made the case for democracy. More than one sentence before the war. Did you realize if all you watch is Fox, you are 80% more likely to be misinformed? CNN blows by the way their choice of things to cover astounds me. Could I have a link to the resolution please? I would like to read through it. You also have to remember that the resolution was penned out with intel that was cherry picked, exaggerated, and out right false.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    A bit paranoid there, aren't we?
    No http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_pr.shtml



    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Could it be because Saddam bought off the French and the Germans? Could it be because the Russians were owed BILLIONS by Saddam? Could it be because the UN couldn't fight itself out of a teacup????
    The same case could be made for the case of war. Who stands to profit form the war? What is this admin made up of? This admin is made up of Oil people, from George Bush on down. I say they have more of a motive to goto war than not. Also where is that $8.8 BILLION that has gone missing in Iraq?



    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Me, and the majority of the voting public, can take 4 more years.

    And you seem a little angry calling the President a LIAR. But you are entitled to your OPINION, as far away as fact as it can be....
    Yes, I am angry, I am tired of this admin decieving the public. You should be too! Disprove him (Bush) as a part owner of a timber company. You won't be able to, because it is fact. He is part owner of a timber company. 50% to be exact.
  4. #204  
    There were no other countries in favor of using this bogus intelligence as an excuse to invade Iraq. The memo suggests that Bush and Blair were on board with this very early in the game. I look forward to hearing President Bush's comments as to whether the memo is true or not.
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Not a conspiracy in the least. Yes do a Google News search.......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's intelligence agencies and nation's leaders AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs...including England, Russia, Iran, Isreal, and France!

    What makes this hard is that we couldn't believe the lies Saddam was telling about his lies. I mean he lied when he had WMDs and tried to hide them. Then he lied that he had WMDs when he didn't have them (though it was proven with docs recovered and by his own personal testimony that he had plans in the works to get them again). In a post 9/11 world, that is not very smart. It's like standing in a dark alley in NYC and you keep on telling a cop you have gun and you might use it while keeping you hands tucked in your jacket pocket point your finger at the cops. It's just stupid.

    There comes a point (aka after 12 years of deceptions and 18 UN resolutions) when you have to call a bluff, when you have to act on the lies of the leader of a proven hostile country.

    The nature of intelligence is gathering all the facts and making a decision of the possibilities of the outcome of that information. It is extremely rare to have a smoking gun in hand whenever making a decision (cuba missile crisis being the ONLY one in modern warfare history I can recall as the exeception to this rule, besides waiting to be attacked as proof such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 which is least to say counter productive). Yes do a Google News search.......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's inteligence agencies AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs and that is about as close as you can get to that though. Remember that that this was in a time were we were already attacked and know that it will happen again if given half a chance. Given the nature of Saddams continual deceptions he recently admitted to on 7/25/2004 where he purposely tried to give the impression he had WMD until he could finalize his plans and bribes to get WMDs again....and given the strong probability at the time he had direct and established connections to Alq...given the fact that inspections were not working because Saddam admitted to trying to deceive them with a vengance so that we did NOT know he did not have them and more importantly so that Iran did not find out he did not have any....this all has to be considered when analyizing the risk to national security of another homeland attack with either a bio or nuke strike on US soil by waiting until it happend as proof to go after Saddam who was trying his hardest to make it look like he was in a position to do it?

    Clinton was also an important part in the Bush's decision as he had intel from his adminstration that Saddam had nuke and bio WMDs and confirmed that to Bush.

    As far as the memo is concerned I would like to see the chronological order of information being received from other from foriegn nation's intel and CIA's to see the timing of what was really known or even suspected when.

    I realize that hind sight is 20/20. History has proven over and over again that if we knew then what we know now, we could have taken a straighter course. Heck hind sight has showed us that we came within 36 hours of having a nuke strike on US soil if we would have extended the time of signing the surender papers with Japan and Germany at the end of WWII by just 2 days!
    Very well put!

    I have a couple questions though. Why not let the inspectors do there job? Why did the bush admin turn down requests to triple the inspectors? Why not send armed UN escorts to assist the inspectors? I am sure there was more ways to resolve all this by diplomatic means. So why the rush to war?
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    There were no other countries in favor of using this bogus intelligence as an excuse to invade Iraq. The memo suggests that Bush and Blair were on board with this very early in the game. I look forward to hearing President Bush's comments as to whether the memo is true or not.
    They did not deny that he had WMDs, they just did not want to take him out in spite of their own intelligence that he has them, has historically proven he is willing to use them on his own people and foriegn nations. This then goes back to the Oil for Food scandals. France, UN, Germany, were the countries named as the biggest participants. Russia had a HUGE amount of money invested in Iraq's oil infastructure and military development, not to mention debt owed. These are the main parties that did not deny he had WMDs but just wanted a 20th, 21st, etc... UN resolution until Saddam voluntarily came clean.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    There were no other countries in favor of using this bogus intelligence as an excuse to invade Iraq. The memo suggests that Bush and Blair were on board with this very early in the game. I look forward to hearing President Bush's comments as to whether the memo is true or not.
    I say we get the admin under oath to see what they really knew. If they were honest with the american people then they have nothing to fear. I think the american people deserve the truth.

    Just a quick question, Do you think this matter of the Downing Street Minutes should be looked into atleast a little?
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I say we get the admin under oath to see what they really knew. If they were honest with the american people then they have nothing to fear. I think the american people deserve the truth.

    Just a quick question, Do you think this matter of the Downing Street Minutes should be looked into atleast a little?
    you're asking me?
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    has historically proven he is willing to use them on his own people and foriegn nations.
    Just a little side note on this statement, We were the ones equipping him with those WMDs at the time.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    you're asking me?
    I know your answer.
    I was reffering to the folks that are standing behind this weasel (Bush).
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Very well put!

    I have a couple questions though. Why not let the inspectors do there job? Why did the bush admin turn down requests to triple the inspectors? Why not send armed UN escorts to assist the inspectors? I am sure there was more ways to resolve all this by diplomatic means. So why the rush to war?
    I am only slightly torn with the timing of the war.

    After 12 years of attempting to inspect a location, to only find out later that as the inspectors were walking in the front door, evidence was being smuggled out the back....it does get a little discouraging with the possibility of confirming Saddams claims he has WMDs and his claims he Does not have WMDs.

    The UN unanimously voted to take action against Iraq, but then France, Germany, and Russia started back peddling when it came down to putting to action what their vote said.

    The question I ask myself is after 12 years of deciet and lies, how much longer would it have taken for Saddam to finally tell the truth or to let the inspectors do their job without trying to obstruct their work or to stop hiding evidence from them or stop threatening the lives of family members of anyone who talked with them?

    I personally feel that there were not many already untried options left that Saddam had not taken a personal hand in trying to foil.
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Just a little side note on this statement, We were the ones equipping him with those WMDs at the time.
    Yup....but that is a whole other thread. I think that the US recognizes that Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq. I also think that is why we have taken so many actions to keep Iraq in place....as a policital buffer between the US and Iran. Among several other reasons, I think this is only one reason why we stopped when we did in the first Gulf War.

    I am not supporting any of those actions, but I must say Iran is one scary place.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    They did not deny that he had WMDs, they just did not want to take him out in spite of their own intelligence that he has them, has historically proven he is willing to use them on his own people and foriegn nations. This then goes back to the Oil for Food scandals. France, UN, Germany, were the countries named as the biggest participants. Russia had a HUGE amount of money invested in Iraq's oil infastructure and military development, not to mention debt owed. These are the main parties that did not deny he had WMDs but just wanted a 20th, 21st, etc... UN resolution until Saddam voluntarily came clean.
    So all the other nations in the world had some lucrative financial association with Iraq............except England and the US. Thats why only the US and England together pushed for war. Yes that's very believable.

    The leaders and foreign policy ministers and the defense department and the intelligence departments of France and Germany acted in a coordinated manner to protect their little oil corruption scam - yes of course, please pass that kool-aid over here, it seems like a pretty good batch to me.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am only slightly torn with the timing of the war.

    After 12 years of attempting to inspect a location, to only find out later that as the inspectors were walking in the front door, evidence was being smuggled out the back....it does get a little discouraging with the possibility of confirming Saddams claims he has WMDs and his claims he Does not have WMDs.

    The UN unanimously voted to take action against Iraq, but then France, Germany, and Russia started back peddling when it came down to putting to action what their vote said.

    The question I ask myself is after 12 years of deciet and lies, how much longer would it have taken for Saddam to finally tell the truth or to let the inspectors do their job without trying to obstruct their work or to stop hiding evidence from them or stop threatening the lives of family members of anyone who talked with them?

    I personally feel that there were not many already untried options left that Saddam had not taken a personal hand in trying to foil.
    I agree to the extent that Sadddam was pressing everyones patience. But I do say this, before we commit or boys and girls to an armed battle, I want to make absolutely sure we have exhausted all options, and I feel that we did not. I feel that we didn't even have the nessecary info to make a case for war. I think we should have stepped up the inspections with armed escorts. We could have done better. The rush to war really distrubes me. All I can say is why. I bet if we 'follow the money' we will get our answer. If it is so easy to say the French and others were not interested in invasion due to monetary reasons, then I think the same could be said for the opposite. I also really think we should have an inquiry into this memo that states the Bush admin was 'fixing' the facts around the policy of removing Saddam. Make no mistake Bush wanted Saddam out of Iraq he just needed a reason. When high level British memos state such things as 'war is inevitable', 'the administration is fixing the facts around the policy', 'the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors' and so on, it makes me wonder why. And I bet if more Americans knew about this then they would want answers too!
  15. #215  
    Cellmatrix....don't blow either side out of poportion with ALL other nations statement. There is only so many with voting power in the UN.

    It is obvious that there are selfish reason for all sides to engage in war. US & Brit had their stakes claimed for what they would like out of it, both publically, privately, and personally.

    France, Germany, and Russia also had obvious gains for NOT acting on the intelligence. France actively campaigned other countries....to the point of visiting them and either offering incentives or consequences if they did not vote in their favor for the UN vote.

    Don't throw this over the shoulder as a conspiracy theory. Not all the facts are in yet for the Oil for Food scandal. But it is a fact that first of all it happened. High ranking...decision influentual personnell...in France & Germany were profitting from keep war away from Iraq. They did actively and agressively campaign to sway votes away from the US.
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    ... Show me somewhere that Bush made the case for democracy. More than one sentence before the war.
    Mosey on over to Whitehouse.gov, and you will find all the transcripts, press releases and statements. However, something tells me you will find (or not find) what you want, so me doing the research for you would be a monumental waste of MY time...

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You also have to remember that the resolution was penned out with intel that was cherry picked, exaggerated, and out right false.
    Cherrypicking? You know, like what you did on your long list on post #166? Cherrypicking cuts both ways, don't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The same case could be made for the case of war. Who stands to profit form the war? What is this admin made up of? This admin is made up of Oil people, from George Bush on down. I say they have more of a motive to goto war than not. Also where is that $8.8 BILLION that has gone missing in Iraq?
    So we went to war to profit the big oil companies and to steal $8.8 billion. I see. I'm sorry, but not only does this make no sense, its not worth replying to.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Yes, I am angry, I am tired of this admin decieving the public. You should be too! Disprove him (Bush) as a part owner of a timber company. You won't be able to, because it is fact. He is part owner of a timber company. 50% to be exact.
    What, Bush LIED about the timber company??? IMPEACHMENT!!!!! If they could only find one of his GOP ties with tree sap on it....
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Just a little side note on this statement, We were the ones equipping him with those WMDs at the time.
    So I guess If I give my son the keys to the car and he has an accident it's my fault?
    The store sells a gun to a guy and he kills his wife and kids years later, it's the stores fault?
    Nissan makes the Z car really fast and I get a speeding ticket in mine, I can make them pay?

    Cmon NRG your making it sound like you blame the US for Saddam and Iraq no matter how it's looked at. And you make it sound like you think your country is wrong in almost everything.

    We know you don't like Bush. You just need to get over the fact you won't be able to vote him out for a couple more years. All this bickering isn't going to change anything.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    ...I look forward to hearing President Bush's comments as to whether the memo is true or not.
    You look forward to that, do you? Do you expect him to say "oh, well, yes, if the MEMO says so, I guess I did make it all up!"

    Please....
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I know your answer.
    I was reffering to the folks that are standing behind this weasel (Bush).
    A liar AND a weasel. Any other choice words for YOUR President?
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Mosey on over to Whitehouse.gov, and you will find all the transcripts, press releases and statements. However, something tells me you will find (or not find) what you want, so me doing the research for you would be a monumental waste of MY time...
    You are the one who made the statement so I think you should show the proof.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Cherrypicking? You know, like what you did on your long list on post #166? Cherrypicking cuts both ways, don't it?
    That is more of a guideline for you to see the run-up to the war and how it started. Needless to say I am not leading the country to war. I cited all the cases and outlined it for you to see , if you don't want to pay attention to it, no big deal.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    So we went to war to profit the big oil companies and to steal $8.8 billion. I see. I'm sorry, but not only does this make no sense, its not worth replying to.
    I didn't say we went to war to steal 8.8 billion I just asked where it went. By the way wasn't this war supposed to pay fo itself?



    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    What, Bush LIED about the timber company??? IMPEACHMENT!!!!! If they could only find one of his GOP ties with tree sap on it....
    Never called for impeachment over this, merely that Bush is a known Liar, just like Clinton. I can show you more cases of Bush's deceit if you wish. Also are you telling me he doesn't own 50% of a timber company?

Posting Permissions