Page 3 of 43 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 845
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    He has had over 10 YEARS to comply...what difference was 3-4 months going to make?

    Put that in your gym shorts.
    Whose side are you on anyways...US or Iraq? Bush or Saddam?
    You obvisouly are not answering the question so maybe I will spell it out for you. 3-4 months would give the inspectors enough time to determine if he did in fact WMD. Doing just this, I think would have saved 1600+ lives of the bravest, countless dollars of our Taxes, our respect in the world community, thousands of Iraqi women and children, and keeping Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for future terrorist. So why the rush to war? Is this so tough to understand?

    "Put that in my gym shorts"? Good grief what are you talking about?

    DO NOT question whose side I am on!!!!!!! I live here in America, born in Boston therefore making me a natural American. I have great respect for my country and I CANNOT sit idly by while We The American People's name is dragged through the mud, so Bush and his cabal can get their wishes.

    Again, DON'T ever question my allegiance to my country!
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Ok, because it is such a nice case:

    - The British secret service and the government knew how weak the case for WMDs really was (see official British memo above)
    - If the Brits knew how weak the case was, the US knew, too.
    - The Bush government didn't care, they pretended they have solid evidence, they know for sure, etc. that Saddam has WMD and that he is a threat to the US (see link to quotes in first post of this thread).
    - From the above it becomes clear that the Bush administration fooled the people in the US.
    Thank you. It sounds better now, atleast to me.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You obvisouly are not answering the question so maybe I will spell it out for you. 3-4 months would give the inspectors enough time to determine if he did in fact WMD.
    Do you really believe this? Based on previous experience, I can't see how anyone could believe it would have lead to anything but further delay tactics and stalls.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    actually, no....just the same tired story. Seriously, now many times are you going to post this anyway.......
    Except this time there is concrete proof of misleading.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Then why didn't he tell anyone?
    I don't know, why don't you ask him? Maybe he didn't want to make a weak impression? Fact is, he DID get rid of the WMD.
    Why did all his supporters/army just give up and run away when Bagdad was attacked?
    I don't know, maybe because many of his soldiers were forced to serve in his army?
    If he really did get rid of them...
    There is no IF. He DID get rid of his WMD, that's a proven fact. The UN weapons inspectors would have come to the same conclusion with a few more weeks of inspections, but that would not have suited Bush, would it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Except this time there is concrete proof of misleading.
    Or partially so.

    My beef with nudist isn't what he has to say but rather why he says it. Based on my reading of his previous posts, IMO he posts not to discuss but rather to bash and further his hatred of those who do not believe as he does. Every thread he has started is incendiary in nature - he cares not about the discussion.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Far easier to revert to primitive personal attacks like Clairegrrl and others, if you have no arguments to support your beliefs.
    Hey clulup...it looks like you are the one that wants to make with the personal attacks. Interesting how whenever somebody brings up something about swissville, you really have nothing to say. I assume it's because you cant support the swissinfo propaganda with facts.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  8. #48  
    I just read this whole thread and feel that the meta-point was really missed. Whether we speak of Bush or Clinton lies the issue at heart is our government's capacity to manipulate evidence, render unsound judgments and, invariably, cloak the eyes of its citizens.

    I believe the reason why these types of threads (conversations, etc.) pop up so frequently is due to our utter disdain with the way process, procedure and reasoning is handled at the government level (federal, state, local, etc.). With that in mind, the purpose of my comment is to defend the original poster and "constructive* rebuttals (eg not ad hominem) so there could be a better undertanding of the issues at hand. Ultimately, this discourse is important because as citizens we have a right to know what disclosures our country is making and what foreign and domestic policy ramifications that may have for its people. Once enough people (republicans, democrats, independents, political/non-political affiliates, etc.) agree that there are certain deep underlying systematic problems, then can we only propose change.

    An anecdote to the above-
    Consider the repercussions that the Iraq war is having on middle class and lower middle class Americans with respect to US economy. Energy prices remain high as does the cost of war (which continues to rise). Someone will have to pay for this. When speaking of consequences and repercussions, what is even more striking is that our government made a decision to go to war knowing these consequences. The decision is not economically (much less morally) viable; however, they (gov't) were able to convince many that the cost of war (equipment, bodies, time, energy prices, etc.) outweigh the consequences of war even when there was no logical nexus between 9/11, terrorists and WMD.

    On the same token, Clinton's oval office jollies cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands in independant counsel proceedings and, more importantly, stained (no pun) the moral fabric of this country.

    In any event, I hope the greater point has come out in this.

    We don't necessarily need a regime change. We need a mature process which more directly involves the American people.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Do you really believe this? Based on previous experience, I can't see how anyone could believe it would have lead to anything but further delay tactics and stalls.
    So why not let the inspectors in? The point here is that the facts were "fixed", "war was immenent" because Bush's mind was made up. It did not matter if the intel told him differently he was going to "fix" his own facts. I you don't think so I would do a search on "OSP" aka "Office of Special Plans" or reference the the recording of the "minutes" between PM Blair and his security team in this theard.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    An anecdote to the above-
    Consider the repercussions that the Iraq war is having on middle class and lower middle class Americans with respect to US economy. Energy prices remain high as does the cost of war (which continues to rise). Someone will have to pay for this. When speaking of consequences and repercussions, what is even more striking is that our government made a decision to go to war knowing these consequences. The decision is not economically (much less morally) viable;
    I'm guessing you're not implying such decisions should be made based on economic viability.

    You are aware the high energy prices are not a primary result of this war but rather due to supply and demand functions associated with an accellerating world economy and that the US economy was in a recession prior to the start of the war and has since made and continues to make a strong recovery?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So why not let the inspectors in?
    Didn't we ride this merry-go-round long enough during the previous 10 years?

    I remember something about doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome as the definition of insanity?
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Didn't we ride this merry-go-round long enough during the previous 10 years?
    I dare say it worked.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    We don't necessarily need a regime change. We need a mature process which more directly involves the American people.
    I agree with most of what you say, especially this part, however, I honestly feel that the maturity level of today's society won't ever allow for this. There is too much partisanship. The anti-Bush nay-sayers are trying to make it be 'un-popular' to be a Bush supporter no matter what he says or does.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I dare say it worked.
    IMO, the only way that was going to ever be verified is through the elimination of Saddam.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    IMO, the only way that was going to ever be verified is through the elimination of Saddam.
    And we are back at the point of why not let the UN inspectors verify it. Could it be that the facts were being fixed and if the inspectors discovered Saddam had no WMD Bush's case for war would be shot?
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    And we are back at the point of why not let the UN inspectors verify it. Could it be that the facts were being fixed and if the inspectors discovered Saddam had no WMD Bush's case for war would be shot?
    I don't see it that way at all. I believe we would have seen the same limiting of search locations, etc. and that ultimately the only way it would have been verified would be via regime change. IMO, staying with the inspector route had -0- merit, been there done that, over and over and over and over.......

    I also believe that the thought process of "give them another chance" is one of the primary reasons our society is in it's current state. To me it's no different than the mother or father that continuously set paramaters saying "this time I mean it" and then they do nothing when a child crosses the line. At some point in time there has to be consequences and the target (no pun intended) has to know those consequences will actually take place.
    Last edited by treo2die4; 06/01/2005 at 11:55 AM.
  17. #57  
    Please explain to me then how there was a four-fold increase in price of oil from October 17, 1973 through March 18, 1974. Surely, the supply could not have increased four-fold (or even two-fold for that matter).

    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    You are aware the high energy prices are not a primary result of this war but rather due to supply and demand functions associated with an accellerating world economy and that the US economy was in a recession prior to the start of the war and has since made and continues to make a strong recovery?
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    Please explain to me then how there was a four-fold increase in price of oil from October 17, 1973 through March 18, 1974. Surely, the supply could not have increased four-fold (or even two-fold for that matter).
    Four letters:

    O P E C

    http://www.opec.org/aboutus/history/history.htm

    The 1970s
    OPEC rose to international prominence during this decade, as its Member Countries took control of their domestic petroleum industries and acquired a major say in the pricing of crude oil on world markets. There were two oil pricing crises, triggered by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, but fed by fundamental imbalances in the market; both resulted in oil prices rising steeply. The first Summit of OPEC Sovereigns and Heads of State was held in Algiers in March 1975. OPEC acquired its 11th and final current Member, Nigeria, in 1971.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    I don't see it that way at all. I believe we would have seen the same limiting of search locations, etc. and that ultimately the only way it would have been verified would be via regime change. IMO, staying with the inspector route had -0- merit, been there done that, over and over and over and over.......

    I also believe that the thought process of "give them another chance" is one of the primary reasons our society is in it's current state. To me it's no different than the mother or father that continuously set paramaters saying "this time I mean it" and then they do nothing when a child crosses the line. At some point in time there has to be consequences and the target (no pun intended) has to know those consequences will actually take place.
    But again, the inspections worked, Saddam had no WMD. To satisfy Bush's fake facts we rushed to war. War is not to be taken lightly.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Four letters:

    O P E C

    http://www.opec.org/aboutus/history/history.htm

    The 1970s
    OPEC rose to international prominence during this decade, as its Member Countries took control of their domestic petroleum industries and acquired a major say in the pricing of crude oil on world markets. There were two oil pricing crises, triggered by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, but fed by fundamental imbalances in the market; both resulted in oil prices rising steeply. The first Summit of OPEC Sovereigns and Heads of State was held in Algiers in March 1975. OPEC acquired its 11th and final current Member, Nigeria, in 1971.
    Could the unrest in the region have anything to do with it, AGAIN?
Page 3 of 43 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions