Give some proper motivations for his actions, and I will begin questioning Bush and lying. If you can't show why a profoundly selfish man would take a course that would allow him to remain so instead of losing everything, then nothing about the "conspiracies" that pass for theories around here make any sense.
Well put. I think some of this stems from a true hatred of Bush; a hatred that comes out of the anger about the 2000 election. We still have people running around saying he was never elected. Liberals are beside themselves with anger over the fact that the Republicans have the governmental trifecta going for them. Bush is basically doing what he said he would do and this makes liberals go apoplectic. He said he would cut taxes an he has. He said he'd increse military morale and he has. He said, after 9/11, that things were going to do whatever was necessary to prevent the US from being attacked again, including preemptively striking if need be....and we have.
Bush is implementing an agenda that many liberals and leftists think is nothing short of the end of the world. His conservative positions are at odds with everything liberals stand for, from abortion at will, to tax-and- spend, to extreme environmentalism and special treatment for minorities. He's a principled conservative President and they hate him for it. He makes decisions based not on polls and pragmatism, but on his moral and religous beliefs and on the advice of his cabinet. Liberals don't want a President like that. They don't want a Congress like that, and they certianly don't want a Supreme Court like that. The problem is that they don't have any issues left. They know quite well that the ecnonomy is probably going to be very different in '04 than it is today. Republicans have even taken the prescription drug benefit debate away from them.
So what's left? Personal attacks on the President for political gain. Criticizing him for landing on a carrier and as the commander-in-chief. Criticizing the war and his handling of it, even though many voted for the resolution authorizing it. No Democrat is going to have a chance with these "issues". Their tactics are going to backfire, just as they did in the Congressional midterms. Given a choice between a party that has a agenda that they don't agree with 100%, and one that has no agenda other than attacks and criticisms, voters are going to choose the former each and every time.
The accusations of lying and going to war for personal gain will keep coming, though. They'll keep coming even though said accusations will fail. The Dems just don't know what else to do.
You're welcome to repeat my typo all day if you want. I suppose you need to do something to amuse youself.
Sorry, I was quoting you. It was a little bit of funnin' and a little bit of accuracy.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.
This is just not true. You've got access to the search field at AI & Google. Don't generalize or we'll have to continue to burn your straw-men to the ground.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would Saddam need that sort of "incentive" to comply if he had no weapons? Wouldn't it just be better to prove he had nothing, get the sanctions removed and get on with building yet another presidential palace?
This is a bit of a weird situation. A lot of people here were arguing that it's impossible to prove you don't have something you don't have. He gave the world access to everything down to his golden bathrooms. We could have searched anywhere, and we did.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm only dishonest to someone someone so politically and dogmatically dug in as yourself. For you the daily "truth" only consists of the Democratic party talking points.
If I were a Democrat you might be right. But since I can't even name two* of the Democratic presidential candidates, this statement is probably 100% wrong.
*I don't consider Braun a candidate because she's from my state and I have experienced her complete lack of brain power first hand.
The accusations of lying and going to war for personal gain will keep coming, though. They'll keep coming even though said accusations will fail. The Dems just don't know what else to do.
Why would there be Democrats in England attacking Bush's policies?
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
We can all critically think about it, but let's rephrase it so it accurately states that Bush forced a showdown.
Why would Bush lie and force a showdown over war in Iraq?
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation.
Wait... but what about the "Why pick Hussein? There are lots of other bad dictators?" anti-war argument?
And also, if you're wanting to stick with the main point of the thread, a comparison between Bush and Clinton is more germane than anything you've posted. Read the very first post of the thread again.
--
bunge:
You happily bring up spelling/punctuation errors, let's not have whining about staying on topic simply because you can't address the point. It has everything to do with the topic because Bush mentioned Hussein's brutality (albeit not sanctions) and that's another thing your lot won't address.
There's no doubt that going after the president over this is a political loser for Democrats.
I posted the links to this in another thread:
Bush's approval rating after winning the war in Iraq: 72%
Clinton's approval after being impeached in sex scandal: 73%
People don't like their president attacked. It doesn't matter if he deserves it. If the opposition party attacks the president, people rally around him and support him.
Republicans just couldn't resist during the Clinton presidency. After years and years of perpetual investigations of anything and everything, they had finally got him on something, even if it wasn't what they had hoped it would be. So they just reflexively followed through with impeachment, even though most knew it was a loser for them.
But here's the difference: I don't see Congressional Democrats jumping on this. Congress is held by Republicans, so any hearing will be chaired by Republicans anyway. That's a huge difference, and diffuses the partisanship. And there is no Democratic independent counsel dedicating his career to investigating Bush for years and years on every little thing that comes up.
I think and hope the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans were during Clinton's term. And I don't think it's just smarts. As much as SDW and others think the Democrats hate Bush, I don't think it holds a candle to how partisan Republicans felt about Clinton. They honestly thought he was just an evil man and that they were doing God's work in going after him. And of course it backfired again and again.
Democrats should just let this bubble up in the media and in the currently planned hearings. I think people basically understand what happened, and I think reports will come out showing that political influence was put on intelligence, and I think that will hurt the president, as it should. Otherwise, there's no need to turn this into a partisan attack.
I agree with some of that, but not all. I agree the Republicans hated Clinton. I was kind of waiting for someone to bring that up. The thing is, the two situations are quite different. I really believe Clinton was every bit as corrupt and they thought he was....it's just that the Lewinsky thing was the only thing they could get him on. Secondly, the Republicans obviously profited poltically from their stance on Clinton throughout the 1990's. Clinton's polices cost the Dems control of the house in the mid nineties. Of these, the debate on healthcare was the prime culprit, followed by his massive tax increase. In other words, Clinton's agenda was sort of a disaster poltically. I believe the only thing that saved him was the strong economy in the latter half of the decade.
Quote:
And of course it backfired again and again.
I don't know that the above is true. It backfired to an extent. Then again, they got him impeached and took over Congress all in the same decade.
In this situation, I DO see many Dems jumping on the wagon. I do agree with you, BRussell, that Congress is held by Republicans. Things will be quite different.
Quote:
Democrats should just let this bubble up in the media and in the currently planned hearings. I think people basically understand what happened, and I think reports will come out showing that political influence was put on intelligence, and I think that will hurt the president, as it should. Otherwise, there's no need to turn this into a partisan attack.
That's where I think you are wrong. Well, at least mostly wrong. The Dems should (if I were rooting for them, so to speak) let the media handle it...I agree. But, I don't think it will hurt Bush because
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
First: it is you who are dismissing the history and the facts: the intelligence reports for instance
second: SH very likely did not believe that Bush would Invade. Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis. Also, there is a real chance that SH believed that if he held the bluff we would be frightened of his 'WMD' and merely bomb his citizens again . . . and you know that he always seemed to think that another blood bath was just what those upity citizens needed . . .
anyway, who knows why? but we pretty much knew that it was the case according to many of the intelligence sources. . . and that is the point: the reality was withheld
If they lied as directly as some assume that they did don't put planting weapons beyond them.
As for the critical thinking post i was responding to your gladly aligning yourself with the idiocies that flow out Coulter's brain: that seemed to be the point of your post above, namely tht you too condemn "swing voters" . . . that attitude smacks of the most pathetic self-identity paralysis . . and she tries to make a virtue out of it . . unbelievable!!
Also I would add that it is likely that SH may have felt that, as was apparent from all indications,that no matter what he did Bush was going to have his war and get his top-percent wealthiest folks frineds of his into the oil fields of Iraq . .
First: it is you who are dismissing the history and the facts: the intelligence reports for instance
second: SH very likely did not believe that Bush would Invade. Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis. Also, there is a real chance that SH believed that if he held the bluff we would be frightened of his 'WMD' and merely bomb his citizens again . . . and you know that he always seemed to think that another blood bath was just what those upity citizens needed . . .
anyway, who knows why? but we pretty much knew that it was the case according to many of the intelligence sources. . . and that is the point: the reality was withheld
If they lied as directly as some assume that they did don't put planting weapons beyond them.
As for the critical thinking post i was responding to your gladly aligning yourself with the idiocies that flow out Coulter's brain: that seemed to be the point of your post above, namely tht you too condemn "swing voters" . . . that attitude smacks of the most pathetic self-identity paralysis . . and she tries to make a virtue out of it . . unbelievable!!
I named exactly the type of voter I would condemn. I call them swing voters and I described the characteristics of what swing voter means to me. What would you call them and are you saying it is a virtue to vote while uninformed and based off of no beliefs or information?
I am not dismissing reports... you must have double or triple vision. The article people here are getting up in arms about (talk about knee jerking) is one part of an unreleased report. In otherwords someone has leaked something and all the leftists here running around drawing conclusions from one sentence in an unreleased report.
So I have not dismissed history or facts. Saddam had the ability to create and also had used them. He kicked out inspectors in 1998 and could have gladly come clean at any time and be allowed to continue terrorizing his own people just as he had since 1979.
As for your unsupportable assumption that Saddam would think we were bluffing or not willing to attack, HELLO, massive build up in the region requiring a month or so of time, involving air craft carriers, etc. It wasn't like we just appeared out of the blue. It isn't even like he was working from ignorance since he had experienced it before.
Again it wasn't the cause with many intelligence sources. It has been one sentence in one unreleased report that has entered the 24 hour news echo chamber.
Also I would add that it is likely that SH may have felt that, as was apparent from all indications,that no matter what he did Bush was going to have his war and get his top-percent wealthiest folks frineds of his into the oil fields of Iraq . .
. . .what?! you don't buy that one?
hmmm?!\
Sure I'll buy it. I just don't understand why he didn't let them into Alaska via presidential decree and then simply annex Mexico which has a large oil supply and is right next door.
As for the missing WOMD, they were probably shipped through the nice oil pipeline to syria that UN never knew about.
Trumptman: About sanctions. Been there, done that. Read this pre-war thread for reference: linky
If you don´t want to read it: I have never been for the sanctions as there were implemented. They were not smart enough and targeted the iraqi population instead of Saddam. Every medical or technical equipment that in theory could be modified to be used for production for weapons were banned and the rest faced a year long aproval process that made it impossible to keep up buissness with the recipients.
If you want to argue please read the thread for reference. I really don´t want to restate my arguments all the time:
Trumptman: About sanctions. Been there, done that. Read this pre-war thread for reference: linky
If you don´t want to read it: I have never been for the sanctions as there were implemented. They were not smart enough and targeted the iraqi population instead of Saddam. Every medical or technical equipment that in theory could be modified to be used for production for weapons were banned and the rest faced a year long aproval process that made it impossible to keep up buissness with the recipients.
If you want to argue please read the thread for reference. I really don´t want to restate my arguments all the time:
I didn't ask about sanctions. I asked about this..
The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
The conspiracy freaks here want to argue that Saddam allowed for absolutely no reason that for which he had killed thousands avoiding, and that is being out of power.
Choices...choices...reveal I have no chemical weapons and continue to rape, murder, sell oil secretly, sell oil through U.N., possibly have sanctions removed, continue to building presidential palaces, sleep with whoever I want and also hey watch that crazy Uday of mine....
or...
Die, or be deposed and sit around watching bunker busters try to blow my brains out for... absolutely nothing since that would be the weapons SH would have according to some here.
Now when we consider that this is ...a report... and ...one conclusion in that report...this seems a bit, well premature. Especially when the same folks pointing fingers here were the ones screaming that the inspectors needed ever more time since Iraq is a huge country. (6 months minimum and we have been there in non-fighting fashion for...two.)
The motives given to believe this conspiracy make no sense. Why would some one who loves power give it up for no reason and no gain? Likewise if we believe Bush to be as equally loving of power and money as those here would claim, why would he do something knowing it would harm him and his interests so?
Oh hey, I know we have all three branches of government and after the next election we will have even more senate seats so why don't I ... go and get myself impeached and blow it all...for... absolutely no gain.
Yeah that makes sense... that's believable.
Next up. Hillary Clinton takes it all off for Playboy in an attempt to get taken "serioiusly" as a feminist and politician....
That would make about as much sense as the motives claimed here.
I didn't ask about sanctions. I asked about this..
The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
The conspiracy freaks here want to argue that Saddam allowed for absolutely no reason that for which he had killed thousands avoiding, and that is being out of power.
Choices...choices...reveal I have no chemical weapons and continue to rape, murder, sell oil secretly, sell oil through U.N., possibly have sanctions removed, continue to building presidential palaces, sleep with whoever I want and also hey watch that crazy Uday of mine....
or...
Die, or be deposed and sit around watching bunker busters try to blow my brains out for... absolutely nothing since that would be the weapons SH would have according to some here.
Now when we consider that this is ...a report... and ...one conclusion in that report...this seems a bit, well premature. Especially when the same folks pointing fingers here were the ones screaming that the inspectors needed ever more time since Iraq is a huge country. (6 months minimum and we have been there in non-fighting fashion for...two.)
The motives given to believe this conspiracy make no sense. Why would some one who loves power give it up for no reason and no gain? Likewise if we believe Bush to be as equally loving of power and money as those here would claim, why would he do something knowing it would harm him and his interests so?
Oh hey, I know we have all three branches of government and after the next election we will have even more senate seats so why don't I ... go and get myself impeached and blow it all...for... absolutely no gain.
Yeah that makes sense... that's believable.
Next up. Hillary Clinton takes it all off for Playboy in an attempt to get taken "serioiusly" as a feminist and politician....
That would make about as much sense as the motives claimed here.
Nick
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.
Most people don't do things like this thinking they'll be impeached ( I'm sure Nixon didn't think he'd get into trouble ). They do it because they're stupid enough to think they'll get away with it.
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.
Where are you getting this from? From the polls I've seen, a pretty large majority (70%) of the American public approves of how the war was handled, and doesn't care if WMDs are ever found.
Where are you getting this from? From the polls I've seen, a pretty large majority (70%) of the American public approves of how the war was handled, and doesn't care if WMDs are ever found.
I'm just listening to what people say here and around me personally. Where do you get your info from?
Comments
Give some proper motivations for his actions, and I will begin questioning Bush and lying. If you can't show why a profoundly selfish man would take a course that would allow him to remain so instead of losing everything, then nothing about the "conspiracies" that pass for theories around here make any sense.
Well put. I think some of this stems from a true hatred of Bush; a hatred that comes out of the anger about the 2000 election. We still have people running around saying he was never elected. Liberals are beside themselves with anger over the fact that the Republicans have the governmental trifecta going for them. Bush is basically doing what he said he would do and this makes liberals go apoplectic. He said he would cut taxes an he has. He said he'd increse military morale and he has. He said, after 9/11, that things were going to do whatever was necessary to prevent the US from being attacked again, including preemptively striking if need be....and we have.
Bush is implementing an agenda that many liberals and leftists think is nothing short of the end of the world. His conservative positions are at odds with everything liberals stand for, from abortion at will, to tax-and- spend, to extreme environmentalism and special treatment for minorities. He's a principled conservative President and they hate him for it. He makes decisions based not on polls and pragmatism, but on his moral and religous beliefs and on the advice of his cabinet. Liberals don't want a President like that. They don't want a Congress like that, and they certianly don't want a Supreme Court like that. The problem is that they don't have any issues left. They know quite well that the ecnonomy is probably going to be very different in '04 than it is today. Republicans have even taken the prescription drug benefit debate away from them.
So what's left? Personal attacks on the President for political gain. Criticizing him for landing on a carrier and as the commander-in-chief. Criticizing the war and his handling of it, even though many voted for the resolution authorizing it. No Democrat is going to have a chance with these "issues". Their tactics are going to backfire, just as they did in the Congressional midterms. Given a choice between a party that has a agenda that they don't agree with 100%, and one that has no agenda other than attacks and criticisms, voters are going to choose the former each and every time.
The accusations of lying and going to war for personal gain will keep coming, though. They'll keep coming even though said accusations will fail. The Dems just don't know what else to do.
Originally posted by trumptman
You're welcome to repeat my typo all day if you want. I suppose you need to do something to amuse youself.
Sorry, I was quoting you. It was a little bit of funnin' and a little bit of accuracy.
Originally posted by trumptman
There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.
This is just not true. You've got access to the search field at AI & Google. Don't generalize or we'll have to continue to burn your straw-men to the ground.
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would Saddam need that sort of "incentive" to comply if he had no weapons? Wouldn't it just be better to prove he had nothing, get the sanctions removed and get on with building yet another presidential palace?
This is a bit of a weird situation. A lot of people here were arguing that it's impossible to prove you don't have something you don't have. He gave the world access to everything down to his golden bathrooms. We could have searched anywhere, and we did.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm only dishonest to someone someone so politically and dogmatically dug in as yourself. For you the daily "truth" only consists of the Democratic party talking points.
If I were a Democrat you might be right. But since I can't even name two* of the Democratic presidential candidates, this statement is probably 100% wrong.
*I don't consider Braun a candidate because she's from my state and I have experienced her complete lack of brain power first hand.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The accusations of lying and going to war for personal gain will keep coming, though. They'll keep coming even though said accusations will fail. The Dems just don't know what else to do.
Why would there be Democrats in England attacking Bush's policies?
Originally posted by trumptman
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
We can all critically think about it, but let's rephrase it so it accurately states that Bush forced a showdown.
Why would Bush lie and force a showdown over war in Iraq?
If you think they're going to answer you about the sanctions you're kidding yourself.
Originally posted by groverat
If you think they're going to answer you about the sanctions you're kidding yourself.
Groverat, what would that question have to do with the thread?
I am not democrat and even if I were this is an example of "Whaaa but he did it too" argumentation.
Wait... but what about the "Why pick Hussein? There are lots of other bad dictators?" anti-war argument?
And also, if you're wanting to stick with the main point of the thread, a comparison between Bush and Clinton is more germane than anything you've posted. Read the very first post of the thread again.
--
bunge:
You happily bring up spelling/punctuation errors, let's not have whining about staying on topic simply because you can't address the point. It has everything to do with the topic because Bush mentioned Hussein's brutality (albeit not sanctions) and that's another thing your lot won't address.
I posted the links to this in another thread:
Bush's approval rating after winning the war in Iraq: 72%
Clinton's approval after being impeached in sex scandal: 73%
People don't like their president attacked. It doesn't matter if he deserves it. If the opposition party attacks the president, people rally around him and support him.
Republicans just couldn't resist during the Clinton presidency. After years and years of perpetual investigations of anything and everything, they had finally got him on something, even if it wasn't what they had hoped it would be. So they just reflexively followed through with impeachment, even though most knew it was a loser for them.
But here's the difference: I don't see Congressional Democrats jumping on this. Congress is held by Republicans, so any hearing will be chaired by Republicans anyway. That's a huge difference, and diffuses the partisanship. And there is no Democratic independent counsel dedicating his career to investigating Bush for years and years on every little thing that comes up.
I think and hope the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans were during Clinton's term. And I don't think it's just smarts. As much as SDW and others think the Democrats hate Bush, I don't think it holds a candle to how partisan Republicans felt about Clinton. They honestly thought he was just an evil man and that they were doing God's work in going after him. And of course it backfired again and again.
Democrats should just let this bubble up in the media and in the currently planned hearings. I think people basically understand what happened, and I think reports will come out showing that political influence was put on intelligence, and I think that will hurt the president, as it should. Otherwise, there's no need to turn this into a partisan attack.
I agree with some of that, but not all. I agree the Republicans hated Clinton. I was kind of waiting for someone to bring that up. The thing is, the two situations are quite different. I really believe Clinton was every bit as corrupt and they thought he was....it's just that the Lewinsky thing was the only thing they could get him on. Secondly, the Republicans obviously profited poltically from their stance on Clinton throughout the 1990's. Clinton's polices cost the Dems control of the house in the mid nineties. Of these, the debate on healthcare was the prime culprit, followed by his massive tax increase. In other words, Clinton's agenda was sort of a disaster poltically. I believe the only thing that saved him was the strong economy in the latter half of the decade.
And of course it backfired again and again.
I don't know that the above is true. It backfired to an extent. Then again, they got him impeached and took over Congress all in the same decade.
In this situation, I DO see many Dems jumping on the wagon. I do agree with you, BRussell, that Congress is held by Republicans. Things will be quite different.
Democrats should just let this bubble up in the media and in the currently planned hearings. I think people basically understand what happened, and I think reports will come out showing that political influence was put on intelligence, and I think that will hurt the president, as it should. Otherwise, there's no need to turn this into a partisan attack.
That's where I think you are wrong. Well, at least mostly wrong. The Dems should (if I were rooting for them, so to speak) let the media handle it...I agree. But, I don't think it will hurt Bush because
1) We'll find the weapons
2) He can defend himself convincingly if we don't
Originally posted by trumptman
Regardless of all the dismissing of history, facts, etc by folks such as yourself. The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
First: it is you who are dismissing the history and the facts: the intelligence reports for instance
second: SH very likely did not believe that Bush would Invade. Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis. Also, there is a real chance that SH believed that if he held the bluff we would be frightened of his 'WMD' and merely bomb his citizens again . . . and you know that he always seemed to think that another blood bath was just what those upity citizens needed . . .
anyway, who knows why? but we pretty much knew that it was the case according to many of the intelligence sources. . . and that is the point: the reality was withheld
If they lied as directly as some assume that they did don't put planting weapons beyond them.
As for the critical thinking post i was responding to your gladly aligning yourself with the idiocies that flow out Coulter's brain: that seemed to be the point of your post above, namely tht you too condemn "swing voters" . . . that attitude smacks of the most pathetic self-identity paralysis . . and she tries to make a virtue out of it . . unbelievable!!
. . .what?! you don't buy that one?
hmmm?!
Originally posted by pfflam
First: it is you who are dismissing the history and the facts: the intelligence reports for instance
second: SH very likely did not believe that Bush would Invade. Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis. Also, there is a real chance that SH believed that if he held the bluff we would be frightened of his 'WMD' and merely bomb his citizens again . . . and you know that he always seemed to think that another blood bath was just what those upity citizens needed . . .
anyway, who knows why? but we pretty much knew that it was the case according to many of the intelligence sources. . . and that is the point: the reality was withheld
If they lied as directly as some assume that they did don't put planting weapons beyond them.
As for the critical thinking post i was responding to your gladly aligning yourself with the idiocies that flow out Coulter's brain: that seemed to be the point of your post above, namely tht you too condemn "swing voters" . . . that attitude smacks of the most pathetic self-identity paralysis . . and she tries to make a virtue out of it . . unbelievable!!
I named exactly the type of voter I would condemn. I call them swing voters and I described the characteristics of what swing voter means to me. What would you call them and are you saying it is a virtue to vote while uninformed and based off of no beliefs or information?
I am not dismissing reports... you must have double or triple vision. The article people here are getting up in arms about (talk about knee jerking) is one part of an unreleased report. In otherwords someone has leaked something and all the leftists here running around drawing conclusions from one sentence in an unreleased report.
So I have not dismissed history or facts. Saddam had the ability to create and also had used them. He kicked out inspectors in 1998 and could have gladly come clean at any time and be allowed to continue terrorizing his own people just as he had since 1979.
As for your unsupportable assumption that Saddam would think we were bluffing or not willing to attack, HELLO, massive build up in the region requiring a month or so of time, involving air craft carriers, etc. It wasn't like we just appeared out of the blue. It isn't even like he was working from ignorance since he had experienced it before.
Again it wasn't the cause with many intelligence sources. It has been one sentence in one unreleased report that has entered the 24 hour news echo chamber.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
Also I would add that it is likely that SH may have felt that, as was apparent from all indications,that no matter what he did Bush was going to have his war and get his top-percent wealthiest folks frineds of his into the oil fields of Iraq . .
. . .what?! you don't buy that one?
hmmm?!
Sure I'll buy it. I just don't understand why he didn't let them into Alaska via presidential decree and then simply annex Mexico which has a large oil supply and is right next door.
As for the missing WOMD, they were probably shipped through the nice oil pipeline to syria that UN never knew about.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
You happily bring up spelling/punctuation errors...
Why do you lie so freely? It detracts from a discussion.
If you don´t want to read it: I have never been for the sanctions as there were implemented. They were not smart enough and targeted the iraqi population instead of Saddam. Every medical or technical equipment that in theory could be modified to be used for production for weapons were banned and the rest faced a year long aproval process that made it impossible to keep up buissness with the recipients.
If you want to argue please read the thread for reference. I really don´t want to restate my arguments all the time:
Originally posted by Anders
Trumptman: About sanctions. Been there, done that. Read this pre-war thread for reference: linky
If you don´t want to read it: I have never been for the sanctions as there were implemented. They were not smart enough and targeted the iraqi population instead of Saddam. Every medical or technical equipment that in theory could be modified to be used for production for weapons were banned and the rest faced a year long aproval process that made it impossible to keep up buissness with the recipients.
If you want to argue please read the thread for reference. I really don´t want to restate my arguments all the time:
I didn't ask about sanctions. I asked about this..
The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
The conspiracy freaks here want to argue that Saddam allowed for absolutely no reason that for which he had killed thousands avoiding, and that is being out of power.
Choices...choices...reveal I have no chemical weapons and continue to rape, murder, sell oil secretly, sell oil through U.N., possibly have sanctions removed, continue to building presidential palaces, sleep with whoever I want and also hey watch that crazy Uday of mine....
or...
Die, or be deposed and sit around watching bunker busters try to blow my brains out for... absolutely nothing since that would be the weapons SH would have according to some here.
Now when we consider that this is ...a report... and ...one conclusion in that report...this seems a bit, well premature. Especially when the same folks pointing fingers here were the ones screaming that the inspectors needed ever more time since Iraq is a huge country. (6 months minimum and we have been there in non-fighting fashion for...two.)
The motives given to believe this conspiracy make no sense. Why would some one who loves power give it up for no reason and no gain? Likewise if we believe Bush to be as equally loving of power and money as those here would claim, why would he do something knowing it would harm him and his interests so?
Oh hey, I know we have all three branches of government and after the next election we will have even more senate seats so why don't I ... go and get myself impeached and blow it all...for... absolutely no gain.
Yeah that makes sense... that's believable.
Next up. Hillary Clinton takes it all off for Playboy in an attempt to get taken "serioiusly" as a feminist and politician....
That would make about as much sense as the motives claimed here.
Nick
I think you're saying that 'because we can't think of a better reason for Saddam to act this way, we'll attack'. Is that correct?
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't ask about sanctions. I asked about this..
The issue no one will touch is why Saddam acted as he did. Why would you force a showdown that knocks you out of power over something you don't have when the alternative leaves you no worse off, or possibly better off.?
The conspiracy freaks here want to argue that Saddam allowed for absolutely no reason that for which he had killed thousands avoiding, and that is being out of power.
Choices...choices...reveal I have no chemical weapons and continue to rape, murder, sell oil secretly, sell oil through U.N., possibly have sanctions removed, continue to building presidential palaces, sleep with whoever I want and also hey watch that crazy Uday of mine....
or...
Die, or be deposed and sit around watching bunker busters try to blow my brains out for... absolutely nothing since that would be the weapons SH would have according to some here.
Now when we consider that this is ...a report... and ...one conclusion in that report...this seems a bit, well premature. Especially when the same folks pointing fingers here were the ones screaming that the inspectors needed ever more time since Iraq is a huge country. (6 months minimum and we have been there in non-fighting fashion for...two.)
The motives given to believe this conspiracy make no sense. Why would some one who loves power give it up for no reason and no gain? Likewise if we believe Bush to be as equally loving of power and money as those here would claim, why would he do something knowing it would harm him and his interests so?
Oh hey, I know we have all three branches of government and after the next election we will have even more senate seats so why don't I ... go and get myself impeached and blow it all...for... absolutely no gain.
Yeah that makes sense... that's believable.
Next up. Hillary Clinton takes it all off for Playboy in an attempt to get taken "serioiusly" as a feminist and politician....
That would make about as much sense as the motives claimed here.
Nick
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.
Most people don't do things like this thinking they'll be impeached ( I'm sure Nixon didn't think he'd get into trouble ). They do it because they're stupid enough to think they'll get away with it.
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.
Where are you getting this from? From the polls I've seen, a pretty large majority (70%) of the American public approves of how the war was handled, and doesn't care if WMDs are ever found.
Originally posted by Gamblor
Where are you getting this from? From the polls I've seen, a pretty large majority (70%) of the American public approves of how the war was handled, and doesn't care if WMDs are ever found.
I'm just listening to what people say here and around me personally. Where do you get your info from?