Page 29 of 43 FirstFirst ... 19242526272829303132333439 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 845
  1. #561  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    You ideologues crack me up! What are you talking about? Bush Sr. failed to secure Saddam?? What the Hell is that supposed to mean?
    Um...Bush Sr.'s first war???
    I'm so Great I'm jealous of myself!
  2. #562  
    "This administration had Iraq on their agenda..."

    What was the name of the legislation passed during Clinton's tenure? Something about the bi-partisan change the government in Iraq act of 1999 or something like that?
  3. #563  
    We're talking pre-Clinton...
    I'm so Great I'm jealous of myself!
  4. #564  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Come on. Intelligence agents have come out and stated this admin wanted the intel to fit their agenda. Why are you clinging to this fanatsy that they were acting in the best interests of America based on the best intel available at the time?!!?

    It's simple. This administration had Iraq on their agenda, 9-11 gave them their opening. The horrible deaths of those people have been used to carry out that agenda and vengence for them placed on indefinite hold.

    Suks really.
    I see you avoided the question of the Cat and Mouse.

    Believe me I am not a Bush support on SEVERAL issues, but everything you said in the last post is based on conjecture, opinion, bias, conspiracy theories, and comforting thinking that fits your own personal opinion of Bush.

    But let's take your argument at face value, again. Let's say that Iraq was on GWB agenda since the day Saddam attempted to assignate his dad. Again does it cancel out the FACTS of the situation at the time. The fact that Saddam was tharwting the inspections for 12 years. The fact that Saddam was postering to have WMDs. Now evidence that Saddam planned on assisting terrorist groups if possible for attacks on the US. Does this lessen the threat at the time? No.

    FDR was very open with his personal agenda to wanting to go against German for 2-3 years prior to Pearl Harbor. No matter if you support FDR at the time or support the investigation/trail after the war on his justifications......That does not make Germany any less of a threat at the time.
  5. #565  
    I'm not making excuse for that clown in washington. I know what MY president did wrong. Do you know what YOUR president did? He admitted mistakes and you defend his mistakes. Ignorance...God it spreads worse than the Bird Flu around here doesn't it.....
    I'm so Great I'm jealous of myself!
  6. #566  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    We're talking pre-Clinton...
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=289 -- Timeline of US policy on Iraq

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=290 -- Timeline of US policy on Iraq
  7. #567  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    I'm not making excuse for that clown in washington. I know what MY president did wrong. Do you know what YOUR president did? He admitted mistakes and you defend his mistakes. Ignorance...God it spreads worse than the Bird Flu around here doesn't it.....
    I thought we were talking about the decision to go in under the current circumstances at the time.

    I have stated several times over I have concerns and disagree with a lot of the management of the situation after the fact.....but that is covered in detail in other threads.

    When you use "Clown", "Ignorance" (without supporting my accused ignorance with facts or cites), and "YOUR president", it really adds a an emotional element into your argument that does not support your rational case.
  8. #568  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But let's take your argument at face value, again. Let's say that Iraq was on GWB agenda since the day Saddam attempted to assignate his dad. Again does it cancel out the FACTS of the situation at the time. The fact that Saddam was tharwting the inspections for 12 years. The fact that Saddam was postering to have WMDs. Now evidence that Saddam planned on assisting terrorist groups if possible for attacks on the US. Does this lessen the threat at the time? No.
    Whoa whoa whoa! I hope i never gave the impression that Iraq was on Bush's agenda or that he even has an agenda. I was talking about the administration. The ones making decisions. Cheney, Rumesfeld, you know. Those guys.

    I saw a list on a website somewhere, oh, here it is:
    Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

    **** Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

    Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

    Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

    Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

    Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz



  9. #569  
    Bush Sr (ex CIA) was VP at the time...



    I don't know if this picture was taken before or after Iran-Contra...

    Who's side are we on anyway?
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  10. #570  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Who's side are we on anyway?
    As with anything in History, it depends on who is the lesser evil at the time. Sad but true.
  11. #571  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    Um...Bush Sr.'s first war???
    Yes, you said he failed to secure Saddam. Again, WTF does that mean?

    And what was Bush Sr.'s second war btw, since if he had a first, there must be more.

    I suggest you study history. I don't have a prob with you disagreeing with an Administration, but get your facts about you before you start popping off.

    Desert Storm, the objective was to remove the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. We did that. Trust me, I was there.

    Republican/Confederates as you put it. The Republican Party wasn't even 10 years old at the start of the Civil War, and was founded by people who OPPOSED slavery, and were vehemently opposed the The Slave Power. Hardly a Confederate ideal.

    Once the Republicans had control of the Congress, and the White House, they wanted to take a more aggressive stance against the Confederacy, and punish the Southern States.

    But hey, it's only history, right?
    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. #572  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Whoa whoa whoa! I hope i never gave the impression that Iraq was on Bush's agenda or that he even has an agenda. I was talking about the administration. The ones making decisions. Cheney, Rumesfeld, you know. Those guys.

    I saw a list on a website somewhere, oh, here it is:
    Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

    **** Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

    Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

    Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

    Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

    Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz



    Sorry for the misunderstanding...I now understand what you were saying....and agree with you!

    If you look at the time line links I have above in Post #566, I don't doubt that Iraq was a concern of the Bush Admin prior to 9/11, especially since:

    1) 1992 Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance prepared by **** Cheney, then the Defense Secretary.

    2) Followed by The Open Letter of 1998. In February 1998, 40 "prominent Americans" a signed an open letter to President Clinton, which formed the basis of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.

    This letter calling for an insurrection, and recognition of the (CIA-backed) Iraqi National Congress as the official government of Iraq, was spearheaded by Ahmed Chalabi of the INC. Signers of the letter were:

    Link for complete letter and who signed it

    3) Followed by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The act itself was promoted in Congress by Woolsey, Clarridge, and now-Deputy National Security Adviser for Counter-terrorism Wayne Downing. The act (a piece of bombastic anti-Saddam propaganda full of historical falsehoods) passed Congress and was signed by Clinton, with scant attention from the public at large.

    With all of this in mind....I think I would not doubt your statement at all.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/17/2006 at 02:31 PM.
  13. #573  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    As with anything in History, it depends on who is the lesser evil at the time. Sad but true.
    maybe we are on both sides... just stirring up the shii!!! At the cost of +2,000 young solders and bilions of dollars in debt...

    I don't support that and would rather return to the clinton era in a heartbeat.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  14. #574  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    I don't support that and would rather return to the clinton era in a heartbeat.
    I would love to go back to a pre 9/11 era as well. Different times, cannot be compared apples to apples.
  15. #575  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I would love to go back to a pre 9/11 era as well. Different times, cannot be compared apples to apples.

    Yes, I agree. The terrorist spread their terror, now we are all afraid. But Saddam did not attack us, a rich Saudi did.

    We can get hit just as easily from any other country. Our involvement with Iraq went too far and now we have Iran... who is next?

    Ten years from now we will be supporting Jeb in helping Iran fight Iraq?

    Had 9/11 happened in the Clinton era, would we be in Iraq? maybe we would be in Afganistan and Iraq and Iran would be fighting each other... And paying $1.00 a gallon for gas while Exxon and Haliburton are strugging economically instead of GM and Ford and eveyone else.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  16. #576  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    maybe we are on both sides... just stirring up the shii!!! At the cost of +2,000 young solders and bilions of dollars in debt...

    I don't support that and would rather return to the clinton era in a heartbeat.
    Yes, the Clinton era, where a mortal threat was allowed to fester unchecked. When we issued subpoenas and edicts and talked tough while Islamofacism stalked us. Where the Red Chinese gained MIRV technology and when the North Koreans went nuclear.

    Those were the days.
  17. #577  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Yes, I agree. The terrorist spread their terror, now we are all afraid. But Saddam did not attack us, a rich Saudi did.
    I agree. No one ever said that Saddam was behind 9/11, but he put himself in a position to be a threat AFTER 9/11 in a post 9/11 world. You do not point your finger inside your jacket pocket at a cop in a dark alley at night in NYC saying you have a gun and you are going to shoot, and then complain that they shot you because you did not have a weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    We can get hit just as easily from any other country.
    I agree it could have been from any other country....and still can be. Iran, Syria, Pak, etc.... So I am confused...are you for going after all of them at once or none of them at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    and now we have Iran...
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=50 -- Timing of Iraq and Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Had 9/11 happened in the Clinton era, would we be in Iraq?
    There were terror attacts during Clintons era, but with minimal response. I am not even talking military, but intel as well.
  18. #578  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    ...and when the North Koreans went nuclear.

    Those were the days.

    How do North Korea and Iran Differ?

    in 2002 North Korea told U.S. officials it has developed a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement. North Korea reactivated it's nuclear reactor in 2003. Where was Clinton?

    Why does North Korea see the US as a threat now when in 1994 it signed an agreement?

    Had Clinton bombed North Korea, where would we be now?

    We are fighting a losing battle... the more e fight, the more we lose.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  19. #579  
    Hobbes, I still say Bush obsifacted not getting Osama by going into Iraq. He did nto have to go in just then, Saddam was no threat to us. In addition, as the troops, the vast majority of them think Saddam had something to so with 09/11. I winder why and how thye came to that conculsion? take care, Jay
    PS I also would like 2 things to go back to Clinton's era and most important go back to the days before 9/11. I lost lots of firends in that awful attack.
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  20. #580  
    Hobbes,

    I can't argue with you (not that we are arguing), your ideas and thoughts are not radical or even irational, they are probably more mainstream that anything else.

    I just think that are present government is not honest and open and those in power have a different agenda that what they should have.

    I think our govenrment should concentrate more on the issues at home and solve our problems here, and HELP the rest of the world solve it's problems collectively.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.

Posting Permissions