Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 182
  1.    #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    In the white house situation room, in the days after September 11, 2001, when the president returned to the White House and took over for Terrorism Zhar, Richard Clarke, Mr. Clarke was recalling how the president took him in a side conference room, and asked him if Saddam could have done it.

    Mr. Clark responded that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible, and that they knew where Osama and Al Quaida were.

    The president responded... "Iraq. Saddam. Find out."

    Mister Clarke commented that invading Iran would actually make more sense, given their suspected nuclear program and the fact that Iran actually was an Islamic theocracy etc...
    Look at the middle quote in....yes the long....post #101 ....as Barye has made this same argument over the last 2 years or so several times over. Your dates cannot match up to claim we should have attack Iran instead of Iraq because of Iran's nuke program. We didn't even know about Iran's nuke program until 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 months AFTER the US attacked Iraq.

    Then look at post #3, especially at the section with the list of countries in bold with a summary of what options we had at the time with what we knew at that time.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/26/2006 at 10:35 PM.
  2. #162  
    Richard Clarke writes in his book that he said it to the president in September 2001. I have the book (which was written before the dates in your post) on mp3 if you are interested.
  3.    #163  
    Then what proof did they have before it came out in 2003? Was it just speculation? If so, then it would have been the same situation with Iraq at the same time.....strong speculation of WMDs.
  4.    #164  
    I did google and could find lots of accusations from Clark that Bush had it out for Iraq....but could not find anything about him suggesting Iran as an alternative due to their nuke program.

    I did find this interesting date of known Iran nukes:

    March 18, 2004 --Newsmaker: Mohamed ElBaradei International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told Congress yesterday that he has no "specific proof" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Margaret Warner asks ElBaradei about alleged nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea.

    From a detailed chronological listing of War on Terror: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/terrorism.html
  5. #165  
    Sigh. The point Hobbes, was that Iraq was the only secular power in the mideast. Saddam was torturing religious extremists at Abu Ghraib. Often for no other crime than suspicion of being too religious. The Shea including Osama, were the ones who wanted Saddam gone. Now they have their wish.

    My point was not so much that this president should have invaded Iran, but that there was a time when we had the support of the entire world when we could have, and it would have actually made more sense than this action in Iraq.

    And Hobbes. I had a tear in my eye when the president stood in the rubble of the towers and said "I hear you, and the world hears you, and soon those responsible are going to hear from all of us". Literally fists clenched and a tear streaming down my face. And what would you have said back then if i would have told you that in 2006, we were still listening to tapes from that *******? (Osama) That the president would have called Tommy Franks and told him to move his troops to iraq?
  6.    #166  
    So, wait........the whole argument that we should have gone into Iran instead of Iraq because we supposedly knew they had nukes with a timeline that doesn't make sense for that claim, that you then defended, was really for nothing? Man, this discussion is just spiraling around in circles with illusions of factual claims that are tossed aside when faced with the accurate history of the claims.

    The point you made in the last post is totally different from your claim of fact (and your subsequent defense of that claim) that we knew about Iran's nuke program before we we even started contemplated going after Iraq. I was only responding to the factual base of your claims. That is a pretty big claim to throw out and simply then toss aside when the facts don't line up, IMHO.

    If you wanted to talk about the political and balance of power ramifications of going into Iraq vs Iran or any other country at that time you should have said so......I missed that with the claim that we had more cause to go into Iran instead of Iraq because we knew about their Nuke program back then, when we really didn't.

    So since all along, you were really talking about the political balance of power resulting from a range of choices we had at the time .......Here is what I have stated about I feel about if we should have gone after Iran instead:
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    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. In both cases the remaining country would still be a major a unconfirmed and open ended WMD threat.

    Source: From post #101 that I linked to above
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    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 Baghdad, 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.

    Source: From post #3 that I linked to above
    Here is actually a whole thread on this very subject from about a year ago, that actually includes several different scenarios:

    Okay...So...You Say Never Should Attacked Iraq....Then what would have happened?


    And Hobbes. I had a tear in my eye when the president stood in the rubble of the towers and said "I hear you, and the world hears you, and soon those responsible are going to hear from all of us". Literally fists clenched and a tear streaming down my face. And what would you have said back then if i would have told you that in 2006, we were still listening to tapes from that *******? (Osama) That the president would have called Tommy Franks and told him to move his troops to Iraq?
    I would never doubt any American's dedication or feelings during the trauma of 9/11, and sincerely hope you did not get that from any of my posts.

    As for Osama, I personally saw him with a tremendous amount of support and home turf advantage with at least 5 countries (Afg, Pak, Syria, Iran, and Iraq) to hop around in full of supporters to blend in with and to support him, rugged country that the Russians could not tame during the whole of the Afg war, and with billions of dollars at his disposal. With no disrespect for our armed forces, I personally placed my bet that his kidneys would get him before we would. Heck Pak will not let us cross their borders even if we are in hot pursuit of OBL. All he has to do is lay low there and we cannot openly touch him.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/27/2006 at 03:44 AM.
  7. #167  
    I havent backed of my claim, as usual I just dont have close to the stamina required to withstand your relentless barrage of copy paste. I read it long ago in Richard Clarke's book. I told you, you can borrow it on mp3 if you like. It also has an almost minute by minute account of everything that happened at the White House in the days following 9/11 when Condoleeza literally gave control of the country and the world to Mr Clarke.

    If I recall, Tommy Franks made mention of the possibility of Iran's nuclear capability as well in his book when he was expressing his disbelief for the president asking him to move his troops to Iraq, right in the middle of Tora Bora.

    And finally, with all due respect

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ...I personally saw him with a tremendous amount of support and home turf advantage with at least 5 countries (Afg, Pak, Syria, Iran, and Iraq) to hop around in full of supporters to blend in with and to support him...
    All of these are good points with the exception of Iraq. I will try to be respectfull, but his idea is just so way off base. Saddam had a strangle hold on that country, especially on the Shea. He was fighting a constant threat from the fundamentalists(many from Iran) who wanted to overthrow him and form a religious state. Which .. is the goal of OBL.
  8.    #168  
    The "barrage" of quotes are simply the same ones, over and over again........There WAS NOTHING new. You just keep on asking the same question in a different way and I keep on sharing the same answer.

    I did try to keep it simple to link to them a couple posts up with detailed directions to what look for and included a brief summary so you would NOT have to actually read a lot (like in post #161). When it was apparent you didn't read them, as you asked the same question again. I simply posted the few paragraphs I referenced to help you out.

    You asked the question, I had an answer. Again, since you are a newer member of forum without the knowledge of past discussions, I shared a link to a thread that covers your EXACT question in detail as I thought if you were really serious about an answer you would appreciate several perspectives on this topic that has already been covered by both those on the right and on the left on this forum.

    Considering how complex the question is of if we should have gone after Iran instead of Iraq is, post #166 is pretty straight to the point, especially since only the two quotes and a single link address the question. I am sorry you didn't want a real answer to your questions. I will keep try to keep the complex issues to bullet points next time with no references.

    BTW....AQ did have training camps in Iraq. I don't think I have ever seen any support that Saddam supported them, but they were there. Barye has pointed this out with references several times.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/27/2006 at 03:01 PM.
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    BTW....AQ did have training camps in Iraq. I don't think I have ever seen any support that Saddam supported them, but they were there. Barye has pointed this out with references several times.
    Yes I know, they were in the Kurdish Controlled North! Where Saddam didnt have power! Remember? The ones Saddam gassed.
  10.    #170  


    Israeli intelligence chief says Iran has missiles that can hit Europe

    JERUSALEM (AP) — Iran has received its first batch of North Korean-made surface-to-surface missiles that put European countries within firing range, Israel's military intelligence chief said in an interview published Thursday.

    The BM-25 missiles have a range of 1,550 miles and are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, the Haaretz daily reported.

    ---------------------

    The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until Friday to stop enriching uranium, a necessary step for developing nuclear weapons. Should Iran continue its refusal to comply, the Security Council is likely to consider taking punitive measures.

    ---------------------

    Military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, who spoke to Haaretz, has warned of the new Iranian missiles in several recent interviews to the media. Iran already has missiles capable of reaching Israel, but the BM-25s are a significant upgrade over its existing top-of-the-line missiles — the Shihab-4 and Shihab-3.

    -------------------

    Iran has also tested several long-range missiles in recent weeks, including a "top secret" missile capable of being fired from helicopters and jet fighters, Iranian state-run television reported.

    Iran also tested the Fajr-3, a missile it said can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Iran also tested what it calls two new torpedoes.

    U.S. intelligence officials have said that Iran is at an advanced stage of developing a missile that can carry a nuclear warhead. The United States has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of the details of the Iranian missile program.

    FULL STORY: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...s_x.htm?csp=15
  11. #171  
    [QUOTE=HobbesIsReal]
    Israeli intelligence chief says Iran has missiles that can hit Europe
    QUOTE]

    Firstly pardon me if for lack of better words this comes out wrong. I have utmost respect for Israelites. And they rightly pride themselves for solid business acumen and courage. I guess it came about from years of self preservation from numerous oppressions. If the British axiom was divide and rule, Israel’s seems to be: engage as many friends in fighting your battles so the battle ultimately becomes universal.
  12.    #172  
    Wouldn't be too hard to do in this case....all Isreal has to do is point and say "Look over there at what he has, see?"

    If it is true I would hope that the EU would have enough personal stake in the situation, not to have be prodded by Isreal.
  13. #173  
    [QUOTE=HobbesIsReal]Wouldn't be too hard to do in this case....all Isreal has to do is point and say "Look over there at what he has, see?"
    QUOTE]

    You mean oil, right.
  14.    #174  
    No....missiles that can reach the EU capable of carrying a nuke warhead.
  15.    #175  

    US Report Calls Iran "Most Active" State Sponsor of Terrorism

    Iran was said to have remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

    The U.S. document said Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were directly involved in supporting and encouraging a variety of groups including Lebanon's Hezbollah and Syrian-based Palestinian factions.

    Crumpton said Iran continues to resist demands for the handover of Al Qaeda fugitives, and is apparently lending material support to Iraqi insurgents:

    "Tehran has repeatedly refused to bring to justice, publicly identify, or share information about detained senior Al Qaeda members who murdered Americans and others in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings," added Mr. Crumpton. "Iran encouraged anti-Israeli terrorist activity, rhetorically, operationally and financially. In addition, Iran has provided assistance to anti-coalition forces in Iraq. As the President said earlier this year, some of the most powerful IED's [Improvised Explosive Devices) we're seeing in Iraq today include components that come from Iran."
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/28/2006 at 06:04 PM.
  16.    #176  
    Man....does anyone else get run around in circles with Blaze? I have been seeing this pattern develop among several threads. In this thread alone he has made several claims as fact (often times not cited), then when presented with documented facts, turns around on his own story or never acknowledges his original claims may have been wrong and throws out another one.

    Some examples in this thread alone:

    Me saying that I simply and only find it interesting that new information is and will be coming out as 35,000 boxes of documents and taps from Saddam's Regime is currently being translated. Information may come out to prove any side's point of view, but currently only circumstantial and often uncorroborated, but point against Saddam. And then being accused of making new claims, offering bogus hard facts form obscure sources that were actually ABC, MSNBC, NYT, etc... etc...

    Saying Clinton had nothing to do with NK obtaining Nukes. Ignores when facts are presented and moves to another subject.

    Saying we had intel on Iran at the time we went after Iraq as justification of that. Then when dates don't match up, I get a sigh and changed the argument to....oh, what I really meant was...

    These last couple posts are small but classic example of changing arguments when presented with facts instead of acknowledging them (notice it went from Saddam had total control of his country, presented with facts, story changed to Saddam had no control of the whole north of his country):
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesisReal
    As for Osama, I personally saw him with a tremendous amount of support and home turf advantage with at least 5 countries (Afg, Pak, Syria, Iran, and Iraq) to hop around in full of supporters to blend in with and to support him,
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I will try to be respectfull, but his idea is just so way off base. Saddam had a strangle hold on that country,
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesisReal
    BTW....AQ did have training camps in Iraq. I don't think I have ever seen any support that Saddam supported them, but they were there. Barye has pointed this out with references several times.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Yes I know, they were in the Kurdish Controlled North! Where Saddam didn't have power! Remember?
  17. #177  
    Hobbes. The idea that you "presented me with facts" or "educated" me with your lengthy posts is arrogant.

    Again.

    How is it a contradictioin that the Kurds wanted to overthrow Saddam, and Al Quaida wanted to overthrow Saddam. And AQ was helping the Kurds in the North.

    How can you make comments that Saddam had "ties to Al Quaida", and at the same time "educate" me about Saddam not having a strong enough hold on the north to kill the rest of the Terrorists. Lol You are saying that we invaded Iraq because Saddam wasn't killing terrorists fast enough?

    I guess if you make the posts long enough, you can hope we all fail to see the forrest for the trees.
  18.    #178  
    You cannot get over my admitted use of a wrong word and my apologize that I agree I should have used learn instead.

    Blaze, as for your concern with the length, I certainly have a pattern....make basic statement, then if needed additional sources, then if needed lay it out. You came in the on the last stage of this 1 1/2 YEAR cycle with Barye, and assumed it was how it always is. Look above with the Iran had Nukes knowledge debate above, as it fits that pattern perfectly. Or the GOP thread (posts #57 - #63) in another classic perfect example of this pattern and actually comments on others recognizing this pattern.

    As for the multi-thread repeated charges of claiming ties to AQ, this is what I have said about it over and over again:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Interesting documents released yesterday with still hundreds of thousands of pages to come shortly in other releases. There is also 3,000 hours of audio tape of Saddam and his regime that are still be prepared for release.

    Some information is only interesting, other seems on noteworthy by itself but valuable when looked at with all other evidence at the time, while others like with France seem pretty damning in relationship to everything else that was happening at the same time:
    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
    Repeating again.....Hardly claiming of facts.....again this is ONLY interesting information that is just now coming out with more to come that may prove that ANY claim is right or that it is wrong.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/29/2006 at 12:24 PM.
  19. #179  
    Point taken, I didnt say he flat out lied either.

    It was technically true that Saddam had "ties" to Al Quiada for example, which he must have said 100 times. He just left out the part that would change the entire meaning of what he was saying to the exact opposite ... the fact that the point of the meeting was to put aside their hatred of one another, and that the outcome was that they cant.

    On a similar note, there were reports that the president was not happy with Mr. Cheney making comments early on like "we KNOW saddam has wmds" before they had ANY evidence.

    And finally, the problem with the repeated multi threaded charges is that we tend to veer so far away from the relevant points that it's easy to loose track of them.
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It was technically true that Saddam had "ties" to Al Quiada for example,
    That sound you just heard was hell freezing over.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions