The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality

17677798182119

Comments

  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    There wasn't even that. Most of the inspectors present there were saying at the time there was nothing to find. And guess what? No WMD. Whatsoever.



    You haven't offered anything either as far proof just your opinion.



    I've offered commonly known facts and events, the kind of thing one reads in Newsweek or Time. if you are unaware of one of them I'd be happy to find a link. The "Haliburton" conspiracy is not exactly mainstream nor academic.



    And I tend to doubt that the inspectors present said there was nothing to find, or perhaps you don't recall that Hans Blitz told the UN that he needed more time to continue the inspections?



    Moreover inspections had already shown their dubiousness when they failed to turn up the Iraqi efforts post Gulf War I, and when the UN was about to certify Iraq clean...that is until his son-in-law defected and reported the program that they missed.



    Quote:

    I've rehashed this a million times with various people here. They've always lost. I don't want to do this again just for you. I know what happened and could offer you a good link to a place that has a time line with references so it's not just their opinion. But we all know you still wouldn't like it. Saddam was mostly a joke at the point we invaded. There was nothing to be gained by preemptively invading accept a loss of our image, lives, and dollars. What a waste of time! Also 10 years from now this region will be no more stable than it was before the war. You should know that. None of what you said changes the fact that what we did was wrong. No matter how you slice it. There is no justification for forgetting our honor. Attacking without being attacked on our soil is wrong.



    I doubt I would lose as my propostion is reasonable. And as it turned out the invasion was a loss of image, lives, and dollars. But was it worth it?



    That is an uncertain historical what if. The likihood is that sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam would still be in power, and his nuke program active once again. And it is likely the no-fly zone would have history as Saudis demanded the shut down of bases. Once again "cleansing" would have started up again. The armies expanded etc. Perhaps even a new war from Saddam's reborn 'Salidan" complex.



    It will take at least another ten years, and the perspective of history, to determine if this was or was not worth it.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    I've offered commonly known facts and events, the kind of thing one reads in Newsweek or Time. if you are unaware of one of them I'd be happy to find a link. The "Haliburton" conspiracy is not exactly mainstream nor academic.



    And I tend to doubt that the inspectors present said there was nothing to find, or perhaps you don't recall that Hans Blitz told the UN that he needed more time to continue the inspections?



    Moreover inspections had already shown their dubiousness when they failed to turn up the Iraqi efforts post Gulf War I, and when the UN was about to certify Iraq clean...that is until his son-in-law defected and reported the program that they missed.



    I doubt I would lose as my propostion is reasonable. And as it turned out the invasion was a loss of image, lives, and dollars. But was it worth it?



    That is an uncertain historical what if. The likihood is that sanctions would have been lifted, Saddam would still be in power, and his nuke program active once again. And it is likely the no-fly zone would have history as Saudis demanded the shut down of bases. Once again "cleansing" would have started up again. The armies expanded etc. Perhaps even a new war from Saddam's reborn 'Salidan" complex.



    It will take at least another ten years, and the perspective of history, to determine if this was or was not worth it.



    Please if you really have links to facts about there being WMD in Iraq shortly before the war lets have them. I'm guessing not because that would be big news.



    Otherwise none of what you listed changes the fact that this war was sold under false pretenses. Saying " Oops! " after the fact also doesn't change that. The rest of the american government and it's people were hoodwinked into this. I'm sorry but one group shouldn't have that kind of power in this type of government. And had the voters of this good country known about it before they cast their vote for these people I'm sure they would have made a different choice. This wasn't even a declared war and we've been there how long? And it cost how much?



    I'm willing to bet 10 years from now this area will be much the same with someone new.



    I've listed a link to a timeline that you can read for yourself. You've supplied your opinion. Let's see some proof of your claims so we can judge for ourelves as to if what you say was the case. Because really once they got there they found Nothing!



    And that's pretty damning.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Please if you really have links to facts about there being WMD in Iraq shortly before the war lets have them...



    It was the prevailing Democrat view at the time =>



    "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



    "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, 1998



    "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



    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 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 F. Kerry, Oct 2002
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    It was the prevailing Democrat view at the time =>



    "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



    "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, 1998



    "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



    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 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 F. Kerry, Oct 2002



    Now you're just getting nasty. That's hitting below the belt. Where do you get off reminding us all that the Democrats were in on this too?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Now you're just getting nasty. That's hitting below the belt. Where do you get off reminding us all that the Democrats were in on this too?



    Not all...
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Not all...



    Not all Republicans either. In fact, here's what one principled Republican had to say around the same time as a few of those quotes listed above. Note the stark contrast.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    It was the prevailing Democrat view at the time =>



    "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



    "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, 1998



    "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



    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 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 F. Kerry, Oct 2002



    Quote:

    It was the prevailing Democrat view at the time



    So what?



    They were hoodwinked also.



    You want to believe what your president is saying. Especially when he seems so sure. And about the Clinton quote that was 5 years before the war. He may have had WMD at that time . However there was very little reason to think he did shortly before the war ( other than the report that Bush had fron the CIA which was totally fucking wrong ). Most of the inspectors over there were saying they didn't think there was anything to find ( even if Saddam was being uncooperative ). That was their opinion. The UN didn't want to proceed with military action. They didn't think the evidence was enough to start a war over. However in the end Bush pushed this through and we will always live with the consequences.



    None of your quotes change anything about the fact that this invasion was started ( as advertised ) for reasons that didn't really exist. If the public had known the truth it would have never gotten that same support and have never happened. None of what you've said changes a thing.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Not all Republicans either. In fact, here's what one principled Republican had to say around the same time as a few of those quotes listed above. Note the stark contrast.



    And here's what one principled Democrat had to say:



    http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...ch_vote-no.htm



    Note the stark contrast.



    Most importantly, note the reasons for opposition. They are vastly different, though both parties were intelligent enough to doubt the presence of WMDs and not be fooled by the fear machine. As were I and many other members of this board at the time.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    And here's what one principled Democrat had to say:



    http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...ch_vote-no.htm



    Note the stark contrast.



    Most importantly, note the reasons for opposition. They are vastly different, though both parties were intelligent enough to doubt the presence of WMDs and not be fooled by the fear machine. As was I and many other members of this board at the time.



    There's actually a fair amount of overlap between those two speeches. And both, I believe, make substantially correct and valid points.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Most importantly, note the reasons for opposition. They are vastly different, though both parties were intelligent enough to doubt the presence of WMDs and not be fooled by the fear machine. As were I and many other members of this board at the time.



    One small problem with your rationale here tonton; if we do not protect ourselves against the presence of such a threat there is no recourse if we make a mistake, as I am sure you might gather. At the time, as I have indicated, the best intelligence, along with the sentiments and judgments of Democrats and Republicans, was united. We made the decision we made. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is fine for historians but irrelevant for this issue. Moreover, we declined to act against Al Qaeda prior to 2001 and look at what that yielded! If our government does not act against known threats, with the best intelligence we have, we do a disservice to the public that elected that government to office.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    One small problem with your rationale here tonton; if we do not protect ourselves against the presence of such a threat there is no recourse if we make a mistake, as I am sure you might gather. At the time, as I have indicated, the best intelligence, along with the sentiments and judgments of Democrats and Republicans, was united. We made the decision we made. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is fine for historians but irrelevant for this issue. Moreover, we declined to act against Al Qaeda prior to 2001 and look at what that yielded! If our government does not act against known threats, with the best intelligence we have, we do a disservice to the public that elected that government to office.



    What fucking threat? There was clearly no connection between Al-qaeda and Saddam ( as a matter of fact our invasion allowed them into Iraq without the opposition of Saddam they are now a presence there ). No connection between Iraq and 911. No chance his missles could reach us ( 1200 miles on a good day ). And no WMD to sneak into the US. What threat? Just conjuring up the old fear machine isn't good enough these days. There are lots of countries with evil dictators out there. Maybe we should invade them all? That old smoke and mirrors fear machine has to have substance these days. You have to argue with substance. Your argument has none.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    What fucking threat? There was clearly no connection between Al-qaeda and Saddam. No connection between Iraq and 911. No chance his missles could reach us. And no WMD to sneak into the US. What threat? Just conjuring up the old fear machine isn't good enough these days. There are lots of countries with evil dictators out there. Maybe we should invade them all? That smoke and mirrors has to have substance these days. You have to argue with substance. Your argument has none.



    Seems you need basic illustrations to catch on to a point because text is clearly beyond your comprehension. However, to express it again in simple to understand assertion with basic fact, the threat from WMDs is worldwide and mass destruction is just that; something nations cannot await and then react to. Security against WMDs needs to be proactive not reactive; thus Iraq's proven use of WMDs against Iran. particularly Saddam's chemical massacre of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, showed that Iraq had WMD. If you lack the comprehension to understand this, have someone explain it to you with illustrations.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Camp David View Post


    Seems you need basic illustrations to catch on to a point because text is clearly beyond your comprehension. However, to express it again in simple to understand assertion with fact, the threat from WMDs is worldwide and mass destruction is just that; something nations cannot await and then react to. Security against WMDs needs to be proactive not reactive; thus Iraq's proven use of WMDs against Iran. particularly Saddam's chemical massacre of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, showed that Iraq had WMD. If you lack the comprehension to understand this, have someone explain it to you with illustrations.



    It seems you need math skills. That was 15 years and one war before the invasion.



    There were no WMDs before the 2003 invasion. Your argument is a little late to the party. And suggesting that the US become the marauding bad guy of the world every time we suspect something deals a disservice to the honorable history of this great nation. That kind of reactionary ( hardly proactive ) tactic is without honor and not the way a world power should act.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    And suggesting that the US become the marauding bad guy of the world everytime we suspect something deals a disservice to the honorable history of this great nation. That kind of reactionary tactic is without honor and not the way a world power should act.



    I agree 100%. I hope you'll hold to this same position as Barack Obama does the same thing.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I agree 100%. I hope you'll hold to this same position as Barack Obama does the same thing.



    I've already stated previously that it's something where Mr. Obama and I don't agree. We should bring those troops home and concentrate on our problems here right now. The Soviet Union practically went broke trying to fight in Afganistan. There's a lesson to be learned there.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    I've already stated previously that it's something where Mr. Obama and I don't agree. We should bring those troops home and concentrate on our problems here right now. The Soviet Union practically went broke trying to fight in Afganistan. There's a lesson to be learned there.



    Agreed. I hope he does this and stands down from his tough talk with Iran, Pakistan and North Korea also.



    Regarding Afghanistan: I read somewhere recently that it is known as the "empire killer" or some such similar moniker.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Agreed. I hope he does this and stands down from his tough talk with Iran, Pakistan and North Korea also.



    Regarding Afghanistan: I read somewhere recently that it is known as the "empire killer" or some such similar moniker.



    Quote:

    I read somewhere recently that it is known as the "empire killer" or some such similar moniker



    Not suprising at all. This is a time when our military is already overextended. Our budget is in about the same shape. We need to pay some attention to the items here at home for awhile or we'll become one of those fading empires.
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    There were no WMDs before the 2003 invasion.



    Hyperlinks work by clicking on them - move your cursor over the link and depress - the link provided in my prior post not only shows you wrong, but me (and more important my point) right.



    Lest you are unable to scroll back herein is the evidence: i.e., Iraq's proven use of WMDs against Iran. particularly Saddam's chemical massacre of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. This WMD use, and its presence in country, validated our invasion of Iraq. I have no doubt you'll parrot some leftist propaganda in response, but do try to at least accept the facts that history has shown true.



    Oh and one last thing on topic to Obama: THIS!
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    I've already stated previously that it's something where Mr. Obama and I don't agree. We should bring those troops home and concentrate on our problems here right now. The Soviet Union practically went broke trying to fight in Afganistan. There's a lesson to be learned there.



    What is it with Obama and Afghanistan? I mean seriously. 90% of conservatives should be opposing him just because he's a Dem, and at least half of the Liberals should be opposing him because we're against the war. How can he think he is representing the people on this? Even worse than Bush, in my opinion, because at least Bush had half the nation's support.
Sign In or Register to comment.