Page 12 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2789101112131415161722 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 845
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    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.
    you bring up some valid points. The oil for food scandal certainly deserves further investigation.

    The proposed collaboration in this memo between Blair and Bush, which has nothing to do with oil for food, or any other nations besides England and the US, deserves further investigation as well.
  2. #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    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....
    I simply wish to know as much as possible about the events leading up to the Iraq invasion. To find out more information as to how it happened. If that is so ridiculous a wish, well then, sorry to waste your time.
  3. #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    you bring up some valid points. The oil for food scandal certainly deserves further investigation.

    The proposed collaboration in this memo between Blair and Bush, which has nothing to do with oil for food, or any other nations besides England and the US, deserves further investigation as well.
    Like I hinted at before in my long post above....I would agree....but it does need to be investigated with ALL factors in mind, and not a witch hunt to satisfy any personal vendictive residue from their vote allegedly not being counted due to a hanging chad 5 years ago.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/17/2005 at 05:48 PM.
  4. #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    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!
    I agree with you on these points
  5. #225  
    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.
    While Russia was against the UN invasion, they saw terrorist threats by Iraq against the US. Here is what Russian PM Putin said:

    "After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing 'terrorist acts' on the United States and beyond its borders," he (Putin) told reporters.

    I suppose Putin was in on the big "lie" with Bush?
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  6. #226  
    The US is justified in attacking ANY country whose "official services" are preparing "terrorist attacks" on the US.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    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?
    Woof great deduction there! We are talking about WMD here. Just pointing out the fact that we are okay with giving hime WMD when it suits our agenda. Had we not given him the WMD he might not of gassed his own people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    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.
    Yeah you figured out my anti-american agenda. I think we had NO business invading Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy yes, but there are a ton of bad guys out there. Why Iraq first? I would argue N. Korea is far and away more of a threat than Saddam was. Kim the leader N. Korea has said he will sell WMD to whoever asks. He is researching a missile that could hit L.A.. Why did we invade Iraq again? Look I believe the US is one of the greatest countries that has ever been. We are just under poor leadership. I can't really find one good thing this admin has done. If you could point to something that you are proud of Bush about, policy wise, please show me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    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.
    It is not a matter of voting him out but making him and his admin. acoountable.
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Woof great deduction there! We are talking about WMD here. Just pointing out the fact that we are okay with giving hime WMD when it suits our agenda. Had we not given him the WMD he might not of gassed his own people.
    I'm sure had he not had chemicals, he would've just let the Kurds alone...but dammit, he just had to use them on someone!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    While Russia was against the UN invasion, they saw terrorist threats by Iraq against the US. Here is what Russian PM Putin said:

    "After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing 'terrorist acts' on the United States and beyond its borders," he (Putin) told reporters.

    I suppose Putin was in on the big "lie" with Bush?
    Let's add the rest of this shall we?

    "After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing 'terrorist acts' on the United States and beyond its borders," he told reporters.

    "This information was passed on to our American colleagues."

    He added, however, that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam's agents had been involved in any particular attack.

    State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters he did not know anything about the information that Mr Putin said Russia passed on, saying no such information was communicated from Russia through the State Department.


    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...6/s1135600.htm
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I'm sure had he not had chemicals, he would've just let the Kurds alone...but dammit, he just had to use them on someone!
    Yeah he hated those folks to north alright.
  11. #231  
    If he had only rocks and clubs to use, he would've used them. He was nothing more than a schoolyard bully who used his country and neighbors as his schoolyard.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    While Russia was against the UN invasion, they saw terrorist threats by Iraq against the US. Here is what Russian PM Putin said:

    "After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing 'terrorist acts' on the United States and beyond its borders," he (Putin) told reporters.

    I suppose Putin was in on the big "lie" with Bush?
    Making a case from intelligence information is like building a house out of blocks. If you do not have enough building blocks then your house will fall down.

    There is no dispute that we had some building blocks. The dispute between Bush and Blair and the rest of the world was that these blocks formed a stable house, which they in fact did not.
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Making a case from intelligence information is like building a house out of blocks. If you do not have enough building blocks then your house will fall down.

    There is no dispute that we had some building blocks. The dispute between Bush and Blair and the rest of the world was that these blocks formed a stable house, which they in fact did not.
    Seems to me the question is how many blocks you need before defending yourself. Go with too few: you may be wrong. Wait too long: Twin Towers tumble down. It's a hard position to be in.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Seems to me the question is how many blocks you need before defending yourself. Go with too few: you may be wrong. Wait too long: Twin Towers tumble down. It's a hard position to be in.
    I wouldn't really call it defending ourselves. I would call it pre-emption.

    edit: I forgot to add that is a tough delemia but there is other means than war, by that I mean it should always be a last resort. If you notice I don't harp on afghanistan.
    Last edited by NRG; 06/17/2005 at 06:21 PM.
  15. #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Why Iraq first? I would argue N. Korea is far and away more of a threat than Saddam was. Kim the leader N. Korea has said he will sell WMD to whoever asks. He is researching a missile that could hit L.A.. Why did we invade Iraq again? Look I believe the US is one of the greatest countries that has ever been. We are just under poor leadership.
    Up to 8 very good reasons....Nukes. Sure there are several bullies around the world. But how do you eat an elephant?

    If you were a an advisor had to decide which bully do you go toe to toe with first.....would you go after the one with active nuclear bombs with the possibility of having a delivery capabilities of striking LA, San Fran, or Seattle if any perception of action was taken? This one is certain left to exhausting all deplomatic solutions into the ground before acting with sanctions or force. N Korea is Extreme of the extemes for fanatics. They have already stated than even a UN sanction is an all out declaration of war with all means at their desposal.

    Iraq has training terrorist training camps. As is evident even now, it has active terrorist groups that has strong ties to Iran and Syria. The leader claims to have masses of WMDs and admits he had plans to obtain nuke tech. He certainly would not hestitate to let these groups get back at the US with his support, tech, and weapons.

    N Korea had already passed the nuke threashold...or at least with evidence to cautiously assume so. Iraq was building the potential to support another threat to US.

    Calls like this are never easy. They are never cut and dry. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If Bush would not have done anything and Saddam did support a terrorist group with bio, chem, or nuke tech that killed another 2,000 to 20 million people, what would the Dems say? Why didn't he do anything with all the mounting evidence against Iraq and Saddam?
  16. #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Woof great deduction there! We are talking about WMD here. Just pointing out the fact that we are okay with giving hime WMD when it suits our agenda. Had we not given him the WMD he might not of gassed his own people.
    it's called an analogy. the subject of the analogy doesnt give it special consideration IMO.

    Yeah you figured out my anti-american agenda. I think we had NO business invading Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy yes, but there are a ton of bad guys out there. Why Iraq first? I would argue N. Korea is far and away more of a threat than Saddam was. Kim the leader N. Korea has said he will sell WMD to whoever asks. He is researching a missile that could hit L.A.. Why did we invade Iraq again? Look I believe the US is one of the greatest countries that has ever been. We are just under poor leadership. I can't really find one good thing this admin has done. If you could point to something that you are proud of Bush about, policy wise, please show me.
    Roll your eyes all you want. I am just telling you how it sounds. As to Bush's policies, I could name hundreds or one, it would make no difference. Youre mind is made up and nothing I ever say will make you think otherwise.
    It is not a matter of voting him out but making him and his admin. acoountable.
    For a guy who tries to sound like he knows whats going on in our govenrment, this statement is pretty foolish. In our system of government that is how politicians are held accountable. If they dont do what we want we dont re-elect them. (the fact that we did...oh wait you just think we're all stupid) If you can prove actual crimes have been committed the get the impeachment rolling, but making decisions on faulty intelligence isnt a crime last I heard. If it were a good portion of the folks posting here could be arrested for choosing to get out of bed (that part was a joke, lets not get all excited).
    “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
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #237  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Roll your eyes all you want. I am just telling you how it sounds. As to Bush's policies, I could name hundreds or one, it would make no difference. Youre mind is made up and nothing I ever say will make you think otherwise.
    Besides Iraq, I just want your opinion on a policy you are proud of. You never know I might agree with you, if we discuss it a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    For a guy who tries to sound like he knows whats going on in our govenrment, this statement is pretty foolish. In our system of government that is how politicians are held accountable. If they dont do what we want we dont re-elect them. (the fact that we did...oh wait you just think we're all stupid) If you can prove actual crimes have been committed the get the impeachment rolling, but making decisions on faulty intelligence isnt a crime last I heard. If it were a good portion of the folks posting here could be arrested for choosing to get out of bed (that part was a joke, lets not get all excited).
    So why don't we hold a hearing and get Bush under oath so the American people can be assured that Bush is being held accountable. If he did nothing wrong then he has nothing to fear. We make the scope of the hearing very narrow and focus on Iraq and pre-war intel. Sound fair?
  18. #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    In our system of government that is how politicians are held accountable. If they dont do what we want we dont re-elect them. (the fact that we did...oh wait you just think we're all stupid)
    Woof, in theory this is true...but in practice? I don't want to start off on a tangent about term limits but let me just say this...INCUMBANCY is king. The money, resources, press, etc. that an incumbant gets makes it very difficult to unseat them via a popular vote. I think we can agree on that. As far as President Bush being re-elected...most moderates would say something like 'He was the lesser of two evils". Thats really not a ringing endorsement
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    ... So why don't we hold a hearing and get Bush under oath so the American people can be assured that Bush is being held accountable. If he did nothing wrong then he has nothing to fear. We make the scope of the hearing very narrow and focus on Iraq and pre-war intel. Sound fair?
    Nope, not really. He was already held accountable. It was called the 2004 election. Best bet to change the direction of the country is to put someone else other that Hillary up for election in 08 ......
    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
    #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Nope, not really. He was already held accountable. It was called the 2004 election. Best bet to change the direction of the country is to put someone else other that Hillary up for election in 08 ......
    This isn't about partisanship this is about accountability. There happens to be high level memos that state the Bush admin had 'fixed' facts around the policy of removing Saddam, not making sure he disarmed. This is some new evidence that requires further investigation don't you think? Let's see what was really going on under the hood, by this I mean see how our intel and other assumptions came to fruition. Or I guess you aren't concerned that your president may have lied to you.

Posting Permissions