Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 182
  1.    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Certainly that's how both iran & N. Korea see things.

    They may not be lead by the sharpest tacks in the drawer, but when they listened to junior's posturing "Axis of Evil" tirade they got his meaning. Nuke up or die.

    If junior had even half a thimblefull of intelligence, and any knowledge of history he'd not have made a threat toward multiple targets -- when they had yet to become formal adversaries, and when he had not the capability to deliver on the final threat itself. Those "enemies" though, would inevitably need to act as if he would.


    again, if he had even a half a thimblefull of intelligence, and any knowledge of history he would not have invented the fiction that Sadamm was a sponsor of Al Queda and how the next smoking gun would be coming from Sadamm's mushroom cloud. It needed to the frighten people and congress to semi-consent to his catastrophic war -- though Sadamm was no threat to us, while his tyrany served to distract and counterbalance Iran, while keeping Iraq free Al Queda's threatening terrorists.
    For loads of information about Irans 20 years of hiding their nuke program and what has happened since it became public that they have been lying all this time.....look at the Iran thread here:

    Iran......

    I have answered this same post from you several times over, here are some of my answers when I have answered this over, and over, and over again.....

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    the most recent and spectacular example: Sadamm opening EVERYTHING to UNLIMITED inspection in the months prior to our idiotic illegal war.
    Absolutely false, he still did tried to give them the run around, as he had an invested interest to not having his WMD capabilities confirmed. For example they submitted a FULL DISCLOSURE of all their WMD activities. Then when the team found something, they would say, "Oh, I'm sorry, this is what we should have said in our Full Disclosure" and add additional documentation that should have been included in the orginal only after they got caught.

    Saddam did not want it confirmed that he did not have any WMDs because he used that possibility as a deterrent against Iran. So he tried to stall and add as much uncertainty as possible into the process, whether to hide the fact he had WMDs from us or to hide the fact that he did NOT have WMDs from Iran....we did not know and could not confirm that his lying about his lying was actually try or another lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Iran has essentially said that they will help kill our troops and pursue atomic weapons -- and dared us to do anything about it. (bring it on !!!)
    This has never changed. They just tried for the last 20 years to keep the nuke part hidden and lied about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I don't need much of an imagination to picture a desert somewhere in Iran, where for the last year Revolutionary Guards have been practicing blowing up old captured Iraqi tanks and APCs. They've no doubt transferred that knowledge, and the tools they've refined, to those fighting us across their border.
    I agree, just as they have supported many other terror acts that many administrations have chosen to ignore or overlook, including Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Can anyone disagree that Iran is the victor of the great generalissimo's escapade ?
    I got to tell you your slanted slurs do really take the wind out of your sail, when trying to present a reasonably balanced arguments. Oh, well.

    Again, yes there have been benefits for Iran. Which makes them even more of an enemy to be concerned about. But you are looking at the snapshot, not the whole picture.

    That Saddam has already testified that he had plans to get Nukes, including re-establishing the infrastructure of producing Nukes and the financing of the program, which apparently included in part the Oil for Food Scandal.

    That Iran had been hiding their Nuke program for around 20 years with lies concerning all sides of it during that time that were less sure at the time we went into Iraq of what Iran was possibly up to, beyond the normal rumors.
    or this one......

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The neutered Saddam did not present a threat to us -- Iran did, and does.
    It is easy to say that now. But what is often challenging to do is to look at the what we knew at the time the decisions were being made........and not with the knowledge we have now. IMHO, This is where a lot of your argument falls apart.

    I shared with you in one of the first posts the choices of those who we could have gone after at that time, and some thoughts on each.

    You have to look at what we knew at the time. Due to Saddams reluctance to confirm his claims that he no longer had the vast amounts of WMD material that Clinton says was still unaccounted for when he left office,
    Congress had already voted for going after Iraq on Friday, October 11, 2002 ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65395,00.html ).
    Nov 8th 2002 the UN Security Council Approves Iraq Resolution ( http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn.../11/00035.html ).
    March 20th, 2003 US attacks Iraq ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.main/ ).

    We did not even have confirmation about Iran's Nuke program until Dec. 2002 With the help of satellite photos of Natanz and Arak ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8472950/ ). So we did not even know for sure about their Nuke program until 2 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and 1 month after the UN approves Resolution 1441.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team headed by chief Mohamed ElBaradei doesn't even inspect Natanz and Arak until Feb. 2003........5 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution.

    And it is not even until June 2003 that they file their report and July 2003 that Diplomats tell Reuters the IAEA has found traces of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at Natanz....... 8 & 9 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and a 2 & 3 monts AFTER the US Attacks Iraq.

    No matter what your personal political opinions are, you cannot muddle facts we know true today as if they were well known then when decisions had to be made.

    I would have supported going after Iran at the time as well, even though we didn't know about their nuke program at the time. But I have little doubt that we would be in the same boat as we are now in Iraq, but in a worse situation. Iran can only support the insurgence under the table with a low profile. Imagine what it would be like if they were free and open to oppose us in this situation? No matter if it was Iran or Iraq, both have to be dealt with. And since even after we had finish dealing with Iran, I doubt that we would still know for sure or not about Saddam's status with his WMDs that there is no doubt that he DID have. It also would have flipped the coin and offered many HUGE benefits for Iraq, just as Iraq's situation has offered benefits to Iran. In both cases, AQ would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases Syria, would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases, we would be fighting an uphill battle against resistant terrorist fearful of a Dem gov who are going to oppose us every minute that we fight to establish democracy in the mist of them.

    Or This one.....

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The mutual antipathy between Sunni ruled Iraq and Shiite Iran for decades acted as a counter to the other.
    I fully agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Our war against Sunni Iraq converted it both into a terrorist haven -- and an ally to Iran.
    Big difference between terrorist situations with Iran and Iraq. In Iraq the terrorist are trying to stop the gov from being establishing a Dem gov. In other words the terrorists are fighting against the gov.

    In Iran, the terrorists are supported by the gov. Big difference. Add that to the allegations that the new Iran Pres is suspected of the being a involved in the US Embassy hostage situation.

    Ally to Iran a BIG stretch....at least on the a purposed common ground of supporting terrorists as you purpose. There have been reaching out to establish diplomatic ties after several years of war. There have also been military agreements, which could but Iran in a unique situation. Working with the Iraqi military on one side and the possibility of supporting the extremist on the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    In the decades after Iran's shiite revolution it has been the primary nation state sponsor of international terror. Our embassy and 271 marines in Lebanon, the Israeli embassy in Argentina, to acts of terror in europe and Saudi Arabia.
    Agreed. And they are suspect in many other modern day supporting of terror still going on today. If nothing else by turning a blind eye to an unwritten gov policy of unofficially offering safe haven to terrorist groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    junior's "Axis of Evil" tirade, where he named Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea -- persuaded both those surviving regimes that they'd better possess nukes soon, lest the little generalissimo be on them next.
    I would have to agree.

    But consider the fact that NK already has up to 8 Nukes thanks to Clinton's deal with NK of giving them aid, while apparently not effectively monitoring NK's side of the agreement or at least not adding appropriate safe guards to verify their compliance of not pursuing nukes under the deal.

    That Saddam has already testified that he had plans to get Nukes, including re-establishing the infrastructure of producing Nukes and the financing of the program, which apparently included in part the Oil for Food Scandal.

    That Iran had been hiding their Nuke program for around 20 years with lies concerning all sides of it during that time. No can say for sure, but looking at all the evidence, their history, their continual half truths about their program, kicking out inspectors when the seem to be watching too closely, trying to hide nuke facilities until it is absolutely undeniable that it is there, etc.... I strongly suspect that their plans, were already laid out well before that speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Exhausted and drained by our Iraqi quagmire, we are unable to bluff or credibly threaten Iran militarily now, even though they have not yet successfully weaponized their stealthy nuke research.
    The Iraqi Quagmire statement from many of the Far Left has long dropped from the field of view. There is no doubt we face great loss over there, but it has been pointed out by even the media that situation does not come close to holding up to Vietnam. Even the self confessed left media didn't stick with that for long, mainly due to the fact that even though we face losses on a continual basis, we are also doing a lot of good and meeting nearly every deadline set.........but that discussing needs to be taken up on the Iraq thread, not on this one.

    But I do agree with you that we would be hard pressed, though unwisely possible, to initiate military options against Iran while we are still tied to cleaning up the situation in Iraq. I personally feel that Iraq needed to be addressed, my big question is the timing concerning other threats at the time and now. I assume that you would agree that all cannot be taken care of at once. Then it comes down to what to do first.

    IRAN: As I mentioned in the first post, I personally think that the US has always been all too aware of the threat of Iran, which has lead to many of our decisions in dealing with both Iraq and Iran. I personally think that is one (among a mountain of others) consideration why during the first Gulf war, we did not go all the way to take out Bagdad, is that Iraq offers a political buffer between the US and Iran and helps to stop a full head on toe to toe situation.

    To tell you the truth Iran possibly scares me more than any other immediate threat for a couple reasons. NK obviously can hurl nukes our way, but I feel is unable to wage any other long term war because of their economy being so bad, food so scarce, and energy resources always low. But Iran I feel has the economy, political momentum, and the man power to wage a VERY serious war against the US. This would make the Iraq war look like game a Risk compared to it, if it came to feet on the ground.

    NKorea: The big difference between Iraq and NK is that NK already has up to 8 unconfirmed nukes with an unconfirmed delivery capability to launch a strike against the entire West Coast of the US with a push of a button. Iraq was claiming (or at least not allowing confirmation that they were not) to be really close to nuke capability and we still had a chance to act before they got it.

    Syria: I think this could have been a possibility, not because of their political, or economical, or military factors, but for making their county a safe haven for terrorist. I think it would have been a similar situation as in Iraq. A quick fall of the gov and a long haul effort to reform the gov while dealing with all the terrorist in the country and those who would come in to join the fight. It may be a target soon because of their continual support of terrorist while thumbing their nose at the rest of us.

    Pakistan: This again falls into a NK category as they also have nukes and have proved with 5 tests in 1998. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ . Again a country that already has nukes is a whole different situation than one on verge of getting them, like Iran and Iraq.

    Lybia: After seeing that the US meant business with those playing games with WMDs, already gave theirs up and welcomed us in to make sure there they had it all. This is an example of what can happen when we stand up to threats and follow through on what we say we are going to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    And partly in reaction to junior's preelection "texan tough talk", the Iranians elected a hardcore govt, antagonistic to the US, and hell bent on nukes.
    After all the lies of Iran, how are you suppose to talk to Iran? Any gov controlled election that restricts the list of those running, is always a red flag for me personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    can there be any dispute that Iran was the great victor in junior's iraq escapade ??
    Your bias is showing again!

    But I do agree with the statement, that Iran has certainly gained many positive factors from the Iraq situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I fear they are very soon to have nukes no matter UN sanctions or our tough talk.
    Truthfully, I think this would have happened no matter what, who was in office, or if we had gone into Iraq or not.

    Here are some additional posts from me that continue to expound with facts about the situation and with many of them as direct answers to your similar biased claims in the past:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ....man here it comes again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and.....

    With this point always coming up on a regular basis with several different approaches, I have replied to it in extreme detail several times over. Instead of requoting everything, Here are some links for you to review and respond in the appropiate Iraq threads where this has been hammered out over and over and over and over and over again...:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=289 -- WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...5&postcount=49 -- Blixt reports

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=290 -- Timeline of US policy on Iraq

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=202 -- World Intelligence of WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=206 -- World Intelligence of WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=47 -- Iraq accountability for WMDs lack of full disclosure of all their WMD activities

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=215 -- World Intelligence of WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=306 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=292 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=294 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=296 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=307 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=50 -- Should have gone after Iran instead of Iraq

    .
    Here are some additional responses from me to many of the same or similar claims:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=517

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=307

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=257

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=345

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=577

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=593

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=629

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=806

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=808

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=809

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=814

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=816




    RECENT & NEW UPDATES ABOUT IRAQ WMD EVIDENCE AND TERRORIST LINKS
    I haven't seen many people with the same claims you generally post have any comments either way on these lastest developments from newly translated documents from Saddam regime:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=548

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=550

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=554

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=806

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=808

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=809

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=814

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=816
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/23/2006 at 05:36 PM.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    some other relevant history info for you hoovs -- The shah CRUSHED all dissent -- his internal Savak intelligence was notorious for their savagery and brutality...
    Yeah, I miss the Shah too.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  3. #103  
    [QUOTE=HobbesIsReal].......QUOTE]


    Hobbes how can I fight back against you -- you probably have a BARYE cheat sheet on your desktop hair trigger ready to be deployed at the slightest whiff of a rocket plume ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/21/2006 at 04:29 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4.    #104  
    Nope...just lots of practice responding to your posts...by now it is just mostly copy and paste from the last time I answered the same claim !
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    some other relevant history info for you hoovs -- The shah CRUSHED all dissent -- his internal Savak intelligence was notorious for their savagery and brutality.
    And in its place? Yep, that fine organization that funds nice little groups like Hezbollah.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Second -- by destroying the democratically chosen genuinely popular Mossadegh and contriving to reimpose onto the Iranians that posturing phoney of a junior monarch (parallels anyone ???), we permanently made Mossadegh a martyr and the junior shah a poisonous phoney.
    Your attempts at contriving parallels falls short. All Shah's in a dynasty after the first one were juniors. And it had been that way in Iran for many centuries. Mossadegh may have been popular but the path he chose was not helping Iran. Just like the revolution after him. Sure, the Shah may have largely been part of his own undoing but don't candy coat Mossadegh or the Ayatollahs thaat followed.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    For loads of information about Irans 20 years of hiding their nuke program...[/url]
    WOW! Nice work. Its unusual when someone uses the cut-and-paste shotgun approach that they actually originally wrote the stuff they're pasting.
  7. #107  
    Right, let me get right on reading that entire post Hobbes, as well as every thread linked to it. Especially the ones from those highly reputable mainstream meda outlets about how we actually did find weapons of mass destruction in iraq, and about how Saddam actually was partners with Bin Ladeen. Thanks for the leads.

    Now back to dstrauss' post.

    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    I'm going to hate myself in the morning for lumbering into this intellectually dishonest series of posts, but for me, the key word in this whole dialog is blackmailing.

    The very first time that thug makes his first blackmailing attempt: overt, covert, direct, indirect, or even just a "little hint" then strike first. Teddy Roosevelt said it best - "Walk softly and carry a big stick." What would be so wrong with our stated policy being "You will not get the nuclear bomb." Period - no discussion of how or in what manner we will respond - diplomatic, economic, militaristic.

    Go ahead and hate Bush if you want - there's NEVER been a president who wasn't hated by some group (even Washington - remember the Whiskey Rebellion), so get over it. This Iranian nut job is a threat to the region and the U.S., so it's about time we learn to draw a line in the sand and really mean it for once.
    dstrauss, agreed, most of us sane humans know there are no winners when talking about nuclear war, and threats or even hint's of a premptive nuclear strike is usually not such a good idea

    but when you said blackmail, were you talking about Bush's nuclear exercises near the border of Iraq? The leak of his plans of a premptive strike? His open refusal to take the option of a nuclear option off the table? Or was it the recent statment from the North Korean leader that "the United States does not have a monopoly on the premptive nuclear strike?"

    All in all you think he's handling this well? And which one was the thug? Kim Jong Ill? Bush? Or was it one of the Iranians? Or was it the whole evil axis?
  8.    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Right, let me get right on reading that entire post Hobbes, as well as every thread linked to it. Especially the ones from those highly reputable mainstream meda outlets about how we actually did find weapons of mass destruction in iraq, and about how Saddam actually was partners with Bin Ladeen. Thanks for the leads.
    Sorry for throwing in facts in response to the biased claims that were made. Iran and the Iraq issue is complex and I was addressing baseless claims concerning it with details, dates, sources, and facts to answer those claims. As far as the reputable MSM, a huge portion of the sources I quoted were ABC, MSNBC, NY Times, NY Post, etc. I only addressed the claims by Barye that he has made over and over again (which I noticed you did not take any exception to his claims, only to my response to them). And then after the responses in the past that I quoted above, acknowledges that he was probably wrong, and agreed with for the most part with me.....only to turn around with the exact same claim all over again a month or two later Here is his reply to the last time I responded to this same claim with what I quoted above:

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Hobbes -- I resent your descending to the level of rational analysis in response to my hyper inflammatory posts.

    if you insist on continuing to react this way, I warn you that it may well prove impossible to avoid a meaningful dialogue !!

    I haven’t time to say more – but have no essential quarrel with your reply to what I wrote.
    I also noticed your own personal spin. I have never said that Saddam was in bed with OBL, only the possibility is still to be fully determined. I never said they found WMDs in Iraq, only that we could never trust Saddam's lies about his lies about having the WMDs and then not having.

    You should be aware that I have always pointed out since the beginning of these debates three main points with Iraq and Iran:

    1) You canNOT judge the actions and decisions of going into Iraq with knowledge that we have now, i.e. saying we should have gone into Iran because they have nuke program..when in fact we didn't discover their 20 year long nuke program until 5 months after we toppled Saddam. You have to look at the knowledge that was known at the time the decisions were made.

    2) You have to hold everyone to the same standard. If Bush lied about the WMDs in Iraq, so did Russia, GB, Israel, Saudi, Germany, Italy, Hillary Clinton, Reid, John Kerry, the UN, and France. They all said virtually the same thing at the same time.

    3) I have always stated that we do not know enough to make a final judgment yet on many of the claims against going into Iraq. And I still don't. Hundreds of thousands of documents, private Regime cabinet meeting minutes, memos, thousands of hours of recorded meetings among the upper levels of the regime.....all containing information concerning Saddam's regime still has yet to be translated, analyzed, and released.

    We may find that it was totally unfounded we go in....but we may also find as the latest evidence is starting to point to, that there actually was great deal of real and corroborated circumstantial evidence in abundance at the time the decisions were made.
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by makrotonik
    How can anyone be "okay" with nuclear warfare? who will be the victims here? The dictator who probably has a nuclear bunker under his palace, just waiting for an event like this or tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who's voices a silenced by an oppresive regime?

    People - lets be reasonable here. A nuclear strike (no matter the offending or receiving party is) is a clear loss for all of us...are those is support of a nuclear strike on iran even sane? God help us all...
    I'm glad I'm not the only one with this idea...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Sorry for throwing in facts in response to the biased claims that were made. Iran and the Iraq issue is complex and I was addressing baseless claims concerning it with details, dates, sources, and facts to answer those claims.
    I admit, i didnt read all of that. I have learned that if i follow every bit of hoovs logic, soon i am tired, and have forgotten what we had started talking about in the first place. Which i suspect was the strategy all along.

    We all know exactly the simple point barye was making. That we stuck our nose in before, and ended up with an Islamic State.

    If you think we haven't done it again overthrowing the only secular power in the region and replacing it with a US installed Shea government, then you must be in that last 30%.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ...I have never said that Saddam was in bed with OBL, only the possibility is still to be fully determined...
    Hobbes, all i can say is, if you are reading a news story that is right next to an advertisement for selling a "peace through superior firepower" T-Shirt with a picture of a bomber on the front, this is exactly what you can expect.

    Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations

    Whether you know it or not, this idea is really out on the fringe.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You should be aware that I have always pointed out since the beginning of these debates three main points with Iraq and Iran:

    1) You canNOT judge the actions and decisions of going into Iraq with knowledge that we have now, i.e. saying we should have gone into Iran because they have nuke program..when in fact we didn't discover their 20 year long nuke program until 5 months after we toppled Saddam. You have to look at the knowledge that was known at the time the decisions were made.
    At the time Bush was mounting this war campaign, every reputable intellegence agency in the world had the opinion that this war was akin to attacking Mexico as a retaliation for Pearl Harbor. There were people screaming from the mountain tops, including his own Terrorism Czar, The Supreme Allied Commander Tommy Franks, Coln Powell (one of my heros, btw, what happened to him?). You forget, this president feels that God is on his side. I have not seen any evidence that it is possible to change this man's mind, once it is made up.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    2) You have to hold everyone to the same standard. If Bush lied about the WMDs in Iraq, so did Russia, GB, Israel, Saudi, Germany, Italy, Hillary Clinton, Reid, John Kerry, the UN, and France. They all said virtually the same thing at the same time.
    So when the sh1t hits the fan, nobody will notice as long as we spread it around? I would never live in Russia, Saudi, Germany, or Italy. Hillary Clinton? Huh? A new york Senator? I dont Even live in that state. Joh Kerry? Dude, he lost. But ok point taken, i will remember not to vote for any of them. But, the United Nations? You are saying that the United Nations said we should invade Iraq? Whew.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    3) I have always stated that we do not know enough to make a final judgment yet on many of the claims against going into Iraq. And I still don't. Hundreds of thousands of documents, private Regime cabinet meeting minutes, memos, thousands of hours of recorded meetings among the upper levels of the regime.....all containing information concerning Saddam's regime still has yet to be translated, analyzed, and released.

    We may find that it was totally unfounded we go in....but we may also find as the latest evidence is starting to point to, that there actually was great deal of real and corroborated circumstantial evidence in abundance at the time the decisions were made.
    This reminds me of watching the Sean Hannity show on fox news in the days and weeks after the invasion of Iraq.

    No joke, every day he was reporting on a new revelation about WMD found in Iraq.
  11.    #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I admit, i didnt read all of that. I have learned that if i follow every bit of hoovs logic, soon i am tired, and have forgotten what we had started talking about in the first place. Which i suspect was the strategy all along.
    I am not sure what Hoovs has to with me and my reply...

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    We all know exactly the simple point barye was making. That we stuck our nose in before, and ended up with an Islamic State.

    If you think we haven't done it again overthrowing the only secular power in the region and replacing it with a US installed Shea government, then you must be in that last 30%.
    My reply never addressed our errors as a nation in dealing with Iran in the past, only with Iraq War on.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hobbes, all i can say is, if you are reading a news story that is right next to an advertisement for selling a "peace through superior firepower" T-Shirt with a picture of a bomber on the front, this is exactly what you can expect.

    Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations

    Whether you know it or not, this idea is really out on the fringe.
    I did not see the advertisement you mentioned....but unless it is a site sponsored promotion, I am not sure how much liability the site has for 3rd party advertisement. I have seen CNN or MSNBC advertise for Fox news, but I don't think they personally endorse Fox News.

    But even if you don't agree that single source and wanted to throw that one source out, there is still all the others from ABC (initially broke the original story concerning this newly translated evidence), MSNBC, NYT, NY Post, Fox News, LA Times, etc.... sharing a lot of the same information. If you chose to ignore it, then you are not very open minded and I would suspect to be personally biased and emotionally opinionated with a drive to hate Bush. If you are willing to look at new evidence and weigh it out, then we can find the truth. I am willing to look at the new evidence and also willing to accept it if shows Bush flat out lied or if there really was founded evidence for decisions at that time.

    And if you read the whole of the sources about the documents that were captured after the fall of Saddam that are just now being released, you would note that nearly everyone was saying close the same thing....there is circumstantial evidence that is pointing to contact and possible deals of varying support between Saddam and AQ in the late 1990's. (see last section of cites in my post above) So, I guess ABC, MSNBC, etc...are really on the fringe too.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    At the time Bush was mounting this war campaign, every reputable intelligence agency in the world had the opinion that this war was akin to attacking Mexico as a retaliation for Pearl Harbor. There were people screaming from the mountain tops, including his own Terrorism Czar, The Supreme Allied Commander Tommy Franks, Coln Powell (one of my heros, btw, what happened to him?). You forget, this president feels that God is on his side. I have not seen any evidence that it is possible to change this man's mind, once it is made up.

    So when the sh1t hits the fan, nobody will notice as long as we spread it around? I would never live in Russia, Saudi, Germany, or Italy. Hillary Clinton? Huh? A new york Senator? I dont Even live in that state. Joh Kerry? Dude, he lost. But ok point taken, i will remember not to vote for any of them. But, the United Nations? You are saying that the United Nations said we should invade Iraq? Whew.
    Did I say the UN approved of going into Iraq? No. you twisted my words again. I said they had intel suggestion that they may be a WMD threat from Iraq....I never mentioned what did with it. But it is important to realize that the Intel from nearly all nations were of a similar nature....that Saddam more than likely had WMDs, uncertain if he disposed of his WMDs, or was planning on rebuilding WMDs. The question was more of what to do with that intel and who each nation wanted to deal with or ignore it. That is a question self interest, current International alliances, etc... For example, The UN and France were being bribed adding an incentive of not support attacking Iraq. Russia had massive arms deals, oil contracts, financial investments that hinged on the stability of Iraq. There were a lot of factors than just the intel in which side each nation fell on.

    What I found to be really funny was when the investigation committee compiled a list of 250 Iraq comments from Reps and 100 from Dems, removed their names, scrambled the order of the quotes, and asked the Senate to question any statement on the list they wanted so they could cross referrence it with any intel that was available at the time the statement was made to determine if the statement was accurate according to the intel, regardless of whether the intel later after the fact proved to be false. The Reps were okay with it, but the Dems refused to do it. If the Dems truly wanted to find the truth, and feel they were always right on the Iraq issue from the start, why would they refuse? ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174262,00.html )

    Since you seem to unaware of what was really being said during that time...here you go....if you are a Dem and won't vote for any of the following who said the same thing that Bush was saying, you are going to have a time voting next election:

    "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) September 13, 2001


    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "As far as Iraq is concerned, let's not forget what the UNSCR is about, that the main consideration in Iraq is that there is a leader who has been developing weapons of mass destruction, and has been violating UN resolutions for over a decade. " Donald Evans from the UN

    "We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction, consistently violated UN resolutions and in a post-9/11 world no American president could afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt." Peter King from UN

    "The Iraq issue has inevitably generated a debate on the functioning and the efficacy of the Security Council and of the UN itself." Atal Bihari Vajpayee from UN

    "Today's message to Baghdad is very clear: the UN Security Council resolution expresses the unity and determination of the entire international community to assume its collective responsibility. " Javier Solana from UN



    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

    "I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition" February 24, 2002http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

    "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- **** Gephardt in September of 2002

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

    Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein. The New York Times Al Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq February 13, 2002
    http://query.nytimes.com/search/abst...AB0894DA404482



    "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

    The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

    13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes

    The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

    I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

    Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

    There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991" Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector Addressing the UN Security Council January 27, 2003
    http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusn...wsID=354&sID=6
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/spr...ranscript.blix



    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

    "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dict
    ator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mas
    s destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John Kerry, Oct 2002

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

    "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

    "No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars." Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)Speech at Drake University in Iowa December 16, 2003 http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec...p?format=print

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

    "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

    "Over th
    e years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman UN, Oct 10, 2002

    US State Department
    November 4, 1998
    Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings

    New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.

    Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.

    Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.

    According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

    "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

    Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.

    http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/
    Bin_Laden_Atef_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html
    Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:

    BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:

    And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate **** Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

    REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:

    I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

    SCHIEFFER:

    Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

    GEPHARDT:

    I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.

    Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
    Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
    November 2, 2003
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...le581509.shtml
    CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

    HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

    Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
    Interviewed on CNN
    October 22, 2001
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This reminds me of watching the Sean Hannity show on fox news in the days and weeks after the invasion of Iraq.

    No joke, every day he was reporting on a new revelation about WMD found in Iraq.
    Man....again.....have you even read about the new evidence coming out the hundreds of thousands of documents and hundreds or thousands of hours of recorded meetings that were captured just after we toppled Saddam's gov? There are only now being translated and as a result there is new evidence coming out on nearly a weekly basis right now. Some of it those who are bitterly opposed to Bush are going to like, but most of it is currently pointing the opposite direction. I am not making this up......I am not sensationalizing it......and I am not ignoring it.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/22/2006 at 09:40 PM.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I admit, i didnt read all of that. I have learned that if i follow every bit of hoovs logic, soon i am tired, and have forgotten what we had started talking about in the first place. Which i suspect was the strategy all along.
    Sorry, Blaze. I'll try to dumb it down for you from now on.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Sorry, Blaze. I'll try to dumb it down for you from now on.
    LOL, now you're on to something.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    ....
    but when you said blackmail, were you talking about Bush's nuclear exercises near the border of Iraq? The leak of his plans of a premptive strike? His open refusal to take the option of a nuclear option off the table? Or was it the recent statment from the North Korean leader that "the United States does not have a monopoly on the premptive nuclear strike?"

    All in all you think he's handling this well? And which one was the thug? Kim Jong Ill? Bush? Or was it one of the Iranians? Or was it the whole evil axis?
    Let's try simple and sweet:

    If that Iranian nut job so much as hints at using a nuclear device, we turn Iran into a glow in the dark glass factory.

    Okay, you can stop screaming now...and ditch the railing about that "thug in chief" in the White House. I think there is a significant number of Americans that are sick and tired of these tin dictators. And yes, innocents would die in my scenario, just like ours did on 9/11. Maybe its time for them to wake up and throw the nut jobs out themselves. And don't give me any of that crap about they are too suppressed by these tyrants to effectively rebel. That's purely circular logic.

    Is that being jingoistic? Damn straight. Pax Romana and the safety of travel by a Roman citizen throughout the empire was not based upon some Chamberlainesque diplomatic appeasement, but upon the knowledge that injury of a Roman citizen was a death sentence. And spare me the Duetschland uber alles comparisons as well. The United States is not an expansionist dominating world power. It has been the most benevolent super power known to human history. Yes, I'm also sick and tired of the "America is always at fault/blame America first crowd."

    So much for my world view.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    Let's try simple and sweet:

    If that Iranian nut job so much as hints at using a nuclear device, we turn Iran into a glow in the dark glass factory.

    Okay, you can stop screaming now...and ditch the railing about that "thug in chief" in the White House. I think there is a significant number of Americans that are sick and tired of these tin dictators. And yes, innocents would die in my scenario, just like ours did on 9/11. Maybe its time for them to wake up and throw the nut jobs out themselves. And don't give me any of that crap about they are too suppressed by these tyrants to effectively rebel. That's purely circular logic.

    Is that being jingoistic? Damn straight. Pax Romana and the safety of travel by a Roman citizen throughout the empire was not based upon some Chamberlainesque diplomatic appeasement, but upon the knowledge that injury of a Roman citizen was a death sentence. And spare me the Duetschland uber alles comparisons as well. The United States is not an expansionist dominating world power. It has been the most benevolent super power known to human history. Yes, I'm also sick and tired of the "America is always at fault/blame America first crowd."

    So much for my world view.
    Copy, paste and repost everytime some "useful *****" starts to spew thier anti-American diatribe. Well said.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    Copy, paste and repost everytime some "useful *****" starts to spew thier anti-American diatribe. Well said.
    Chalk it up to America's loss of the ability to "Make him an offer he couldn't refuse."
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    If that Iranian nut job so much as hints at using a nuclear device, we turn Iran into a glow in the dark glass factory.
    Hey ... do you work in the white house? By the way.. Were you saying that the USA is the only nation with the right to have this postion? Or did you mean that the rest of the nuclear powers should take on the same stance?

    IE.."If bush so much as hints at using a nuclear device... blah blah blah, turn Washington Dc in to a skating rink blah blah."

    Or is your position... in the words of Dubuyahh, "bring it on".
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    And yes, innocents would die in my scenario, just like ours did on 9/11.
    Lest we forget.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hey ... do you work in the white house? By the way.. Were you saying that the USA is the only nation with the right to have this postion? Or did you mean that the rest of the nuclear powers should take on the same stance?

    IE.."If bush so much as hints at using a nuclear device... blah blah blah, turn Washington Dc in to a skating rink blah blah."

    Or is your position... in the words of Dubuyahh, "bring it on".
    You don't think Ahmadinejad would take that stance against us if he had the power? Actually, he'd probably target Israel first, but don't think for a minute he wouldn't consider it, if he had the wherewithal to do so.

    Also, consider France that made the same claim recently to Terrorist nations:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011903311.html

    PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

    "The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in Brittany. "This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."
    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..."
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am not sure what Hoovs has to with me and my reply...
    I'm making the point that I dont have the energy to address every point in both of your posts. No offense, and im not saying that they are not worthwile points. Well, some of hoovs are

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    My reply never addressed our errors as a nation in dealing with Iran in the past, only with Iraq War on.
    Yeah sorry that might not have been clear (see what i mean, these responses and counter responses are getting too lengthy). That was in response to hoovs history lession on Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I did not see the advertisement you mentioned....but unless it is a site sponsored promotion, I am not sure how much liability the site has for 3rd party advertisement. I have seen CNN or MSNBC advertise for Fox news, but I don't think they personally endorse Fox News.

    But even if you don't agree that single source and wanted to throw that one source out, there is still all the others from ABC (initially broke the original story concerning this newly translated evidence), MSNBC, NYT, NY Post, Fox News, LA Times, etc.... sharing a lot of the same information. If you chose to ignore it, then you are not very open minded and I would suspect to be personally biased and emotionally opinionated with a drive to hate Bush. If you are willing to look at new evidence and weigh it out, then we can find the truth. I am willing to look at the new evidence and also willing to accept it if shows Bush flat out lied or if there really was founded evidence for decisions at that time.

    And if you read the whole of the sources about the documents that were captured after the fall of Saddam that are just now being released, you would note that nearly everyone was saying close the same thing....there is circumstantial evidence that is pointing to contact and possible deals of varying support between Saddam and AQ in the late 1990's. (see last section of cites in my post above) So, I guess ABC, MSNBC, etc...are really on the fringe too.
    I did read some of those reports you posted in reference to these "ties to al quaida", including those from mainstream sources, however you are wrong about them being new. This is the same information Bush and Cheney were using to drum up support for the war. This is just more verification of it, and none of this was disputed in the intellegence community. There were meetings between Iraqi government officials and al quiada, as a part of an effort to put aside their differences ( those differences being that saddam is secular and was torturing radical islamisists ). Those efforts failed. I have seen no credible information since, to the contrary. Sean Hannity aside of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    What I found to be really funny was when the investigation committee compiled a list of 250 Iraq comments from Reps and 100 from Dems, removed their names, scrambled the order of the quotes, and asked the Senate to question any statement on the list they wanted so they could cross referrence it with any intel that was available at the time the statement was made to determine if the statement was accurate according to the intel, regardless of whether the intel later after the fact proved to be false. The Reps were okay with it, but the Dems refused to do it. If the Dems truly wanted to find the truth, and feel they were always right on the Iraq issue from the start, why would they refuse? ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174262,00.html )

    Since you seem to unaware of what was really being said during that time...here you go....if you are a Dem and won't vote for any of the following who said the same thing that Bush was saying, you are going to have a time voting next election:
    Hobbes, are you saying that the President was taking pre war intellegence information from Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry? Because if not, i cant see how any of this is an excuse for this blunder. And as far as not having anybody to vote for this election. Correct and man are we gonna clean house soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Man....again.....have you even read about the new evidence coming out the hundreds of thousands of documents and hundreds or thousands of hours of recorded meetings that were captured just after we toppled Saddam's gov? There are only now being translated and as a result there is new evidence coming out on nearly a weekly basis right now. Some of it those who are bitterly opposed to Bush are going to like, but most of it is currently pointing the opposite direction. I am not making this up......I am not sensationalizing it......and I am not ignoring it.
    Well, i do remember a report that the administration had ordered literally thousands of of agents to pour over every document they could get their hands on in an effort to justify this war and stop the bleeding. I admit, i would have expected them to uncover some whacked out **** that saddam was up to, however i have looked throught the half billion pages of articles you ahve posted, and I have not seen anything that we did not know before this war started.

Posting Permissions