So when they find the nuclear material and those that transported it, will that still be not enough reason for you?
When they find the proof of ChemBio WMD, what then? (The Kay report shows preliminary evidence of these already)
I guess the hundreds of thousands of innocents that were tortured and killed, I suppose you would want that to continue?
What about all of the UN resolutions that he broke? (The Kay report shows that he was in serious violation of the UN resolutions.)
These are all reasons that the POTUS gave for this war. Please don't leave them out.
You and people like you are putting yourself in a potentially embarrassing position. All the facts are yet to be reviewed. You seem to be basing your opinions on what you hear from like minded politicos. I think you are in a precarious place.
Is it a GOOD thing that there haven't been any actual terrorist events? Yes.
Do the U.S. officials keep "crying wolf"? Maybe, but I'd rather have that than the alternative.
I agree. No attack is the preference. But if these reports come out too often, and do not lead to anything - arrests, bombs found, ... - people will become complacent.
I guess I have contempt for the system because our idiot government sent out a few million fridge magnets telling us to be vigilant, and not worry.
A few hundred thousand were sent back with the words "return to sender" on the unopened envelopes. We're a fun bunch of people.
So when they find the nuclear material and those that transported it, will that still be not enough reason for you?
When they find the proof of ChemBio WMD, what then? (The Kay report shows preliminary evidence of these already)
I guess the hundreds of thousands of innocents that were tortured and killed, I suppose you would want that to continue?
What about all of the UN resolutions that he broke? (The Kay report shows that he was in serious violation of the UN resolutions.)
These are all reasons that the POTUS gave for this war. Please don't leave them out.
You and people like you are putting yourself in a potentially embarrassing position. All the facts are yet to be reviewed. You seem to be basing your opinions on what you hear from like minded politicos. I think you are in a precarious place.
HAhahahahahahahah! Let me catch my breath......whoooo!
Talk about rhetorical!
Why is it these guys don't listen when you say " He had no way to deploy them "?
I guess that's because they'd rather not think about that.
You know I was just talking on the phone to my friend about you. He suggested ( after he stopped laughing ) they haven't found the WOMD because They're lodged in Saddam's colon. He hasn't taken a dump in weeks. He's just waiting for Bush to come visit. Talk about relief!
Sorry to make sport of this but your suggestions are just about as likely. All the other reasons could have been handled at a better time ( less costly ) and not by war. Besides, once again that isn't the reason they sold this on! He was the big threat that wasn't.
Without making people think he had the goods on Saddam and that he was a direct threat to the U.S. he wouldn't have got this war off the ground.
I do remember him saying they had proof they just couldn't reveal it at the time.
The fact of the matter is that proof wasn't forthcoming.
Can you say " Wool over our eyes? "
He led the american people into believing something that wasn't true for his own agenda. He lied to us. Just like Clinton did. As such he doesn't deserve to be our president. The difference is that Clinton's lie didn't cost any lives or billions of dollars.
Why didn't he pick N. Korea? At least their missles can reach us.
But you go ahead and dream on ( like so many other's have in the past months ) but I wouldn't hold your breath. That is unless you're fond of the color blue.
What page of the "Democratic talking points" hand book is that in?
Bush did not state "imminent threat" That was a creation of your political party. He plainly stated exactly the opposite.
Like I said, I put little credence in your far left rhetoric, Just as I dismiss the opposite end of the spectrum. SH was a threat to just about every nation in his region, along with the US, UK and Israel and their allies.
Give us all a break from your revisionist blather. Please.
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
As I've said before the war wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it sound like he was a direct threat to us. And even then most thinking people weren't buying it.
And just exactly how was he a direct threat to us as implied buy our president and a good enough reason for us to go to war and spend billions of dollars in a time of economic strife? Hmmm?
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
As I've said before the war wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it sound like he was a direct threat to us. And even then most thinking people weren't buying it.
And just exactly how was he a direct threat to us as implied buy our president and a good enough reason for us to go to war and spend billions of dollars in a time of economic strife? Hmmm?
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
Maybe, I am wrong, but you don't seem to see the attack of 9/11 as a declaration of war. Just as in WWII and WWI once war was declared allies fell in line. Who do you think the allies of Al-qaeda were to be? I really think that even with the small amount of public intel that is circulating now there is some link between Al-qaeda and Iraq. the fact that Al-qaeda ran to the aid of the Saddam loyalists even before the war started give at least some credence to the notion. The link between other rogue nations and Al-qaeda is definitely there. I think as time goes on you will see more and more evidence that they all had nefarious connections.
I am not sure where, but I heard or read that they had found some paper trail or maybe even the missiles themselves leading to china and some "Ho-dung" or whatever ballistic missiles. These had the range to reach the west coast. I will have to look that up.
The kay report also talked about missiles that had a range outside of the UN mandated range. They also had missiles that could reach Israel who is a direct ally of the US. Remember, protecting allies is very important.
Also again, you are only focusing on one of the many reasons GWB gave for hostilities. Right now I would say he is batting 4 out of 5 with the last pitch just being thrown.
As far as intel goes, you like many others just assume that you can find out what our government knows by simply browsing the web and news articles. You, just like many opponents to this administration, seem to assume some special knowledge that the president is lying. You are forgetting that there is still plenty of intel to be gathered from the many combatants in custody now. Releasing information at the wrong time can effect many of the current intel ops going on right now. That is precisely why most of the information that you say you want as proof, usually only comes out long after the fact.
This is a common tactic I have seen these days. A lot of those who use this tactic know that this information can't be released. So what do you have to loose; make an accusation that can't be countered because of security reasons, you think you have won the argument. Case closed. Right?
I say, keep on pushing on that whole "the president lied about WMD" thing. I feel you will be embarrassed by your own claims.
Another 4 years would see further erosion of our economy...
The economy was starting its downslide before GWB came into office (I'm not blaming Clinton). 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back and NOW the economy is starting to recover. What further erosion are you talking about?
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
In case you have the notion. print out a map of the middle east, one that has a scale. Draw a 600 mile border around iraq. What you will see is these countries are within that 600 mile range:
Turkey
Russia
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Iran
Kuwait
Qatar
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Syria
Israel
Cyprus
Egypt
and maybe more...
Now, the reason I mention this is that the US is not only looking out for Mainland US, but also the many US citizens and companies and interests and alliances in that region. Are you implying that we have none of these in any of those countries.
For your argument to be complete, you must prove that none of those were being threatened by SH and his regime.
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
As I've said before the war wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it sound like he was a direct threat to us. And even then most thinking people weren't buying it.
And just exactly how was he a direct threat to us as implied buy our president and a good enough reason for us to go to war and spend billions of dollars in a time of economic strife? Hmmm?
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
In case you have the notion. print out a map of the middle east, one that has a scale. Draw a 600 mile border around iraq. What you will see is these countries are within that 600 mile range:
Turkey
Russia
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Iran
Kuwait
Qatar
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Syria
Israel
Cyprus
Egypt
and maybe more...
Now, the reason I mention this is that the US is not only looking out for Mainland US, but also the many US citizens and companies and interests and alliances in that region. Are you implying that we have none of these in any of those countries.
For your argument to be complete, you must prove that none of those were being threatened by SH and his regime.
Give us all a break.
Huh uh! He implied it was a threat to us directly. Those countries ( interests or not ) would not have been enough for the american people to go along with this. You know it and I know it. Try again.
The economy was starting its downslide before GWB came into office (I'm not blaming Clinton). 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back and NOW the economy is starting to recover. What further erosion are you talking about?
Try again, sport.
Ok, sport. If you want to look at it that way. We were over due for a downturn. However it's all in how the downturn is handled. The president doesn't have control over the cycle. He does have an influence on cushioning the effect. Driving up the debt triple from a surplus is not something that was happening for years. As a matter of fact it happened in a very short time. This will have an effect on things. Just wait and see. What do you think would happen if you just went out and spent, spent, spent on your credit card? Plus he's still doing it! Imagine what 4 more years will bring. Look it's a classic example of republican rule in the Whitehouse. I'm not saying all republicans are bad but they do have this tendancy. You know who'll take it on the chin?
The middle class. The bulk of the people in this country.
I've lived through enough of those administrations to know. Have you?
Maybe, I am wrong, but you don't seem to see the attack of 9/11 as a declaration of war. Just as in WWII and WWI once war was declared allies fell in line. Who do you think the allies of Al-qaeda were to be? I really think that even with the small amount of public intel that is circulating now there is some link between Al-qaeda and Iraq. the fact that Al-qaeda ran to the aid of the Saddam loyalists even before the war started give at least some credence to the notion. The link between other rogue nations and Al-qaeda is definitely there. I think as time goes on you will see more and more evidence that they all had nefarious connections.
I am not sure where, but I heard or read that they had found some paper trail or maybe even the missiles themselves leading to china and some "Ho-dung" or whatever ballistic missiles. These had the range to reach the west coast. I will have to look that up.
The kay report also talked about missiles that had a range outside of the UN mandated range. They also had missiles that could reach Israel who is a direct ally of the US. Remember, protecting allies is very important.
Also again, you are only focusing on one of the many reasons GWB gave for hostilities. Right now I would say he is batting 4 out of 5 with the last pitch just being thrown.
As far as intel goes, you like many others just assume that you can find out what our government knows by simply browsing the web and news articles. You, just like many opponents to this administration, seem to assume some special knowledge that the president is lying. You are forgetting that there is still plenty of intel to be gathered from the many combatants in custody now. Releasing information at the wrong time can effect many of the current intel ops going on right now. That is precisely why most of the information that you say you want as proof, usually only comes out long after the fact.
This is a common tactic I have seen these days. A lot of those who use this tactic know that this information can't be released. So what do you have to loose; make an accusation that can't be countered because of security reasons, you think you have won the argument. Case closed. Right?
I say, keep on pushing on that whole "the president lied about WMD" thing. I feel you will be embarrassed by your own claims.
I may be wrong.
Did you read this part? " He didn't have anything to do with 911. "
That's fact! There is no proven connection.
And please no rags spewing speculation presented as fact!
I think they will never find WOMD in Iraq because they don't exist. Get real! I can remember SDW and others saying that " Just wait they're going to find something soon. " That was back in May.
The last inspectors said they couldn't find any evidence. After months of searching they haven't found anything of consequence. Even if they did still find something there's still that deployment issue to make it a direct threat to us. Which may I remind you again without the implied threat this war would have never made it off the drawing board.
I know! Maybe Saddam has something like the Bat Cave......
What you're saying is just silly, conservative, wishful thinking on your part. You're wrong already. Try again.
The site that I mentioned was based on UN information. How is that a private source? I looked at it as a summary of the UNSCOM info.
You and Giant mast have gone to the same conspiracy theory course. You and he make the same week arguments.
Hey lets go this route. Assuming you are right:
What would GWB and his admin have to gain by waging a fake war in Iraq?
If he was just making up the reason for going to war, he or someone in his circle must have known that the lie would have been exposed. You know he is surrounded by a lot of smart/educated people?
Was it to gain political points or votes? Once again someone had to know that would backfire.
Was it to benefit Halabuerten (wrong spelling)? Once again same problem.
I am open to things that make sense So, explain to me, if you can what exactly would he or his admin stand to gain by a war based on lies? I am sure he/they want to stay in office for as long as possible. How would that help them? See if you can do it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a democratic talking points parrot.
What makes sense to me is he was unexpectedly faced with a global war, and he and his admin decided to take the bull by the horns and methodically eliminate those known threats, so as to keep the US and it's interests safe. Putting his presidency at serious risk to do the right thing.
And to go along with the thread's topic, if you assume that the war was based on lies, you must then disregard the value and purpose of the terror alert scheme. I guess the whole Air-France thing is just a ploy to help bolster the Bush admin.'s claim. I would guess it is al a facade, right?
You accuse me of basing my opinion on speculation, yet you are basing your argument on things that the president only "implied". Not things that he really said. When I mention to you what the actual quote was, you say that doesn't matter it is what he implied.
How can you have a logical argument or discussion with someone that does not use logic?
Ok, sport. If you want to look at it that way. We were over due for a downturn. However it's all in how the downturn is handled. The president doesn't have control over the cycle. He does have an influence on cushioning the effect.
Bush has acknowledged that going to war and giving the tax cuts have led to the national debt. He also has said that he's willing to do that to protect the American people and troops, and try to kick-start the economy....and that's what the money is doing.
The debt will eventually be paid down (we've done it before), and yes, the middle class will probably shoulder the burden from most of that. Why? Because the "rich" are already paying a dramatically higher percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else in the country, and frankly the middle class is the largest group of everyone.
Nobody wants to be in debt, but it's probably better for the long-term to go into debt now than have the economy continue in a down-slide that will be harder and harder to dig ourselves out of as time goes on.
You guys should move to Israel or Afghanistan or Iraq if your think safety is entirely relative.
The fact that 9/11 proved to terror entities that a major attack on the US could be effected, opened the door for every wacky extremist group to follow suit. The fact that no other attack on US soil since proves that our government is taking serious measures to keep it's citizens safe as possible.
Giant, I know you will probably disagree with this, but who knows how many attempts have been thwarted by different agencies in our government.
Safety is relative, I will agree. But to state we are no safer than before 9/11 goes in the face of mounting evidence otherwise. And to imply that GWB is making token measures to achieve greater safety just because you are on the opposite end of the political spectrum, is blatantly irresponsible.
There are people on this earth that have decided that everything is America's and Israel's fault. They are banding together as we speek. They have decided that your life and the lives of your family should be cut short, if they have anything to do with it. You are the enemy, even if you think you are not. They care little about your political leanings. Stating "Wait, I am a liberal Democrat, I defend your cause!" will not save you from their hatred. Sending brotherly love or gifts will not make them like you. Understanding why they hate you will not prevent them from wanting to kill you. You and your children mean nothing to them, except maybe another notch on their gun-stalk. You should come to grips with sooner or later.
Like I said the greatest promoter of safety is involvement in your community.
Naples, I want you to read this post over, three times if you have to, and figure out why each part is fundamentally flawed.
The fact that you are operating at this level might even get you the of the year.
I don't see how you can expect anyone to have a conversation with you when you a spending so much time battling phantoms. The fact that you actually go around believing that what you say here has any relevance is really sad.
In any other situation I would say you are arguing against a fleet of intentionally built straw-men, but unfortunately it's all too clear that you actually believe that what you've constructed is actually true.
Comments
When they find the proof of ChemBio WMD, what then? (The Kay report shows preliminary evidence of these already)
I guess the hundreds of thousands of innocents that were tortured and killed, I suppose you would want that to continue?
What about all of the UN resolutions that he broke? (The Kay report shows that he was in serious violation of the UN resolutions.)
These are all reasons that the POTUS gave for this war. Please don't leave them out.
You and people like you are putting yourself in a potentially embarrassing position. All the facts are yet to be reviewed. You seem to be basing your opinions on what you hear from like minded politicos. I think you are in a precarious place.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I'll continue with that:
Is it a GOOD thing that there haven't been any actual terrorist events? Yes.
Do the U.S. officials keep "crying wolf"? Maybe, but I'd rather have that than the alternative.
I agree. No attack is the preference. But if these reports come out too often, and do not lead to anything - arrests, bombs found, ... - people will become complacent.
I guess I have contempt for the system because our idiot government sent out a few million fridge magnets telling us to be vigilant, and not worry.
A few hundred thousand were sent back with the words "return to sender" on the unopened envelopes. We're a fun bunch of people.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So when they find the nuclear material and those that transported it, will that still be not enough reason for you?
When they find the proof of ChemBio WMD, what then? (The Kay report shows preliminary evidence of these already)
I guess the hundreds of thousands of innocents that were tortured and killed, I suppose you would want that to continue?
What about all of the UN resolutions that he broke? (The Kay report shows that he was in serious violation of the UN resolutions.)
These are all reasons that the POTUS gave for this war. Please don't leave them out.
You and people like you are putting yourself in a potentially embarrassing position. All the facts are yet to be reviewed. You seem to be basing your opinions on what you hear from like minded politicos. I think you are in a precarious place.
HAhahahahahahahah! Let me catch my breath......whoooo!
Talk about rhetorical!
Why is it these guys don't listen when you say " He had no way to deploy them "?
I guess that's because they'd rather not think about that.
You know I was just talking on the phone to my friend about you. He suggested ( after he stopped laughing ) they haven't found the WOMD because They're lodged in Saddam's colon. He hasn't taken a dump in weeks. He's just waiting for Bush to come visit. Talk about relief!
Sorry to make sport of this but your suggestions are just about as likely. All the other reasons could have been handled at a better time ( less costly ) and not by war. Besides, once again that isn't the reason they sold this on! He was the big threat that wasn't.
Without making people think he had the goods on Saddam and that he was a direct threat to the U.S. he wouldn't have got this war off the ground.
I do remember him saying they had proof they just couldn't reveal it at the time.
The fact of the matter is that proof wasn't forthcoming.
Can you say " Wool over our eyes? "
He led the american people into believing something that wasn't true for his own agenda. He lied to us. Just like Clinton did. As such he doesn't deserve to be our president. The difference is that Clinton's lie didn't cost any lives or billions of dollars.
Why didn't he pick N. Korea? At least their missles can reach us.
But you go ahead and dream on ( like so many other's have in the past months ) but I wouldn't hold your breath. That is unless you're fond of the color blue.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What page of the "Democratic talking points" hand book is that in?
Bush did not state "imminent threat" That was a creation of your political party. He plainly stated exactly the opposite.
Like I said, I put little credence in your far left rhetoric, Just as I dismiss the opposite end of the spectrum. SH was a threat to just about every nation in his region, along with the US, UK and Israel and their allies.
Give us all a break from your revisionist blather. Please.
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
As I've said before the war wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it sound like he was a direct threat to us. And even then most thinking people weren't buying it.
And just exactly how was he a direct threat to us as implied buy our president and a good enough reason for us to go to war and spend billions of dollars in a time of economic strife? Hmmm?
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
Originally posted by jimmac
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
As I've said before the war wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it sound like he was a direct threat to us. And even then most thinking people weren't buying it.
And just exactly how was he a direct threat to us as implied buy our president and a good enough reason for us to go to war and spend billions of dollars in a time of economic strife? Hmmm?
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
Maybe, I am wrong, but you don't seem to see the attack of 9/11 as a declaration of war. Just as in WWII and WWI once war was declared allies fell in line. Who do you think the allies of Al-qaeda were to be? I really think that even with the small amount of public intel that is circulating now there is some link between Al-qaeda and Iraq. the fact that Al-qaeda ran to the aid of the Saddam loyalists even before the war started give at least some credence to the notion. The link between other rogue nations and Al-qaeda is definitely there. I think as time goes on you will see more and more evidence that they all had nefarious connections.
I am not sure where, but I heard or read that they had found some paper trail or maybe even the missiles themselves leading to china and some "Ho-dung" or whatever ballistic missiles. These had the range to reach the west coast. I will have to look that up.
The kay report also talked about missiles that had a range outside of the UN mandated range. They also had missiles that could reach Israel who is a direct ally of the US. Remember, protecting allies is very important.
Also again, you are only focusing on one of the many reasons GWB gave for hostilities. Right now I would say he is batting 4 out of 5 with the last pitch just being thrown.
As far as intel goes, you like many others just assume that you can find out what our government knows by simply browsing the web and news articles. You, just like many opponents to this administration, seem to assume some special knowledge that the president is lying. You are forgetting that there is still plenty of intel to be gathered from the many combatants in custody now. Releasing information at the wrong time can effect many of the current intel ops going on right now. That is precisely why most of the information that you say you want as proof, usually only comes out long after the fact.
This is a common tactic I have seen these days. A lot of those who use this tactic know that this information can't be released. So what do you have to loose; make an accusation that can't be countered because of security reasons, you think you have won the argument. Case closed. Right?
I say, keep on pushing on that whole "the president lied about WMD" thing. I feel you will be embarrassed by your own claims.
I may be wrong.
Originally posted by jimmac
Another 4 years would see further erosion of our economy...
The economy was starting its downslide before GWB came into office (I'm not blaming Clinton). 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back and NOW the economy is starting to recover. What further erosion are you talking about?
Try again, sport.
Originally posted by jimmac
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
In case you have the notion. print out a map of the middle east, one that has a scale. Draw a 600 mile border around iraq. What you will see is these countries are within that 600 mile range:
Turkey
Russia
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Iran
Kuwait
Qatar
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Syria
Israel
Cyprus
Egypt
and maybe more...
Now, the reason I mention this is that the US is not only looking out for Mainland US, but also the many US citizens and companies and interests and alliances in that region. Are you implying that we have none of these in any of those countries.
For your argument to be complete, you must prove that none of those were being threatened by SH and his regime.
Give us all a break.
Originally posted by jimmac
It doesn't matter if he did or not the threat was implied.
As I've said before the war wouldn't have happened unless Bush made it sound like he was a direct threat to us. And even then most thinking people weren't buying it.
And just exactly how was he a direct threat to us as implied buy our president and a good enough reason for us to go to war and spend billions of dollars in a time of economic strife? Hmmm?
Remember his missles only had a range of about 600 miles.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/index.html
this is a site I ran across looking into known range of missiles. They say the info was based mostly on UN inspections information.
FWIW
Originally posted by NaplesX
When I read these posts, I tend to filter out the blatant partisanship displayed by both extremes. You guys know who you are!
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as WMD, all of you lefties will be eating your accusations, IMO, very soon.
The blatant partisanship is from you.
Originally posted by NaplesX
In case you have the notion. print out a map of the middle east, one that has a scale. Draw a 600 mile border around iraq. What you will see is these countries are within that 600 mile range:
Turkey
Russia
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Iran
Kuwait
Qatar
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Syria
Israel
Cyprus
Egypt
and maybe more...
Now, the reason I mention this is that the US is not only looking out for Mainland US, but also the many US citizens and companies and interests and alliances in that region. Are you implying that we have none of these in any of those countries.
For your argument to be complete, you must prove that none of those were being threatened by SH and his regime.
Give us all a break.
Huh uh! He implied it was a threat to us directly. Those countries ( interests or not ) would not have been enough for the american people to go along with this. You know it and I know it. Try again.
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/index.html
this is a site I ran across looking into known range of missiles. They say the info was based mostly on UN inspections information.
FWIW
It's easy to find private sites that go along with your opinion. There's a million of them out there. Try again.
Also I agree with Bungie. You're in denial about your partisanship.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
The economy was starting its downslide before GWB came into office (I'm not blaming Clinton). 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back and NOW the economy is starting to recover. What further erosion are you talking about?
Try again, sport.
Ok, sport. If you want to look at it that way. We were over due for a downturn. However it's all in how the downturn is handled. The president doesn't have control over the cycle. He does have an influence on cushioning the effect. Driving up the debt triple from a surplus is not something that was happening for years. As a matter of fact it happened in a very short time. This will have an effect on things. Just wait and see. What do you think would happen if you just went out and spent, spent, spent on your credit card? Plus he's still doing it! Imagine what 4 more years will bring. Look it's a classic example of republican rule in the Whitehouse. I'm not saying all republicans are bad but they do have this tendancy. You know who'll take it on the chin?
The middle class. The bulk of the people in this country.
I've lived through enough of those administrations to know. Have you?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Maybe, I am wrong, but you don't seem to see the attack of 9/11 as a declaration of war. Just as in WWII and WWI once war was declared allies fell in line. Who do you think the allies of Al-qaeda were to be? I really think that even with the small amount of public intel that is circulating now there is some link between Al-qaeda and Iraq. the fact that Al-qaeda ran to the aid of the Saddam loyalists even before the war started give at least some credence to the notion. The link between other rogue nations and Al-qaeda is definitely there. I think as time goes on you will see more and more evidence that they all had nefarious connections.
I am not sure where, but I heard or read that they had found some paper trail or maybe even the missiles themselves leading to china and some "Ho-dung" or whatever ballistic missiles. These had the range to reach the west coast. I will have to look that up.
The kay report also talked about missiles that had a range outside of the UN mandated range. They also had missiles that could reach Israel who is a direct ally of the US. Remember, protecting allies is very important.
Also again, you are only focusing on one of the many reasons GWB gave for hostilities. Right now I would say he is batting 4 out of 5 with the last pitch just being thrown.
As far as intel goes, you like many others just assume that you can find out what our government knows by simply browsing the web and news articles. You, just like many opponents to this administration, seem to assume some special knowledge that the president is lying. You are forgetting that there is still plenty of intel to be gathered from the many combatants in custody now. Releasing information at the wrong time can effect many of the current intel ops going on right now. That is precisely why most of the information that you say you want as proof, usually only comes out long after the fact.
This is a common tactic I have seen these days. A lot of those who use this tactic know that this information can't be released. So what do you have to loose; make an accusation that can't be countered because of security reasons, you think you have won the argument. Case closed. Right?
I say, keep on pushing on that whole "the president lied about WMD" thing. I feel you will be embarrassed by your own claims.
I may be wrong.
Did you read this part? " He didn't have anything to do with 911. "
That's fact! There is no proven connection.
And please no rags spewing speculation presented as fact!
I think they will never find WOMD in Iraq because they don't exist. Get real! I can remember SDW and others saying that " Just wait they're going to find something soon. " That was back in May.
The last inspectors said they couldn't find any evidence. After months of searching they haven't found anything of consequence. Even if they did still find something there's still that deployment issue to make it a direct threat to us. Which may I remind you again without the implied threat this war would have never made it off the drawing board.
I know! Maybe Saddam has something like the Bat Cave......
What you're saying is just silly, conservative, wishful thinking on your part. You're wrong already. Try again.
You and Giant mast have gone to the same conspiracy theory course. You and he make the same week arguments.
Hey lets go this route. Assuming you are right:
What would GWB and his admin have to gain by waging a fake war in Iraq?
If he was just making up the reason for going to war, he or someone in his circle must have known that the lie would have been exposed. You know he is surrounded by a lot of smart/educated people?
Was it to gain political points or votes? Once again someone had to know that would backfire.
Was it to benefit Halabuerten (wrong spelling)? Once again same problem.
I am open to things that make sense So, explain to me, if you can what exactly would he or his admin stand to gain by a war based on lies? I am sure he/they want to stay in office for as long as possible. How would that help them? See if you can do it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a democratic talking points parrot.
What makes sense to me is he was unexpectedly faced with a global war, and he and his admin decided to take the bull by the horns and methodically eliminate those known threats, so as to keep the US and it's interests safe. Putting his presidency at serious risk to do the right thing.
And to go along with the thread's topic, if you assume that the war was based on lies, you must then disregard the value and purpose of the terror alert scheme. I guess the whole Air-France thing is just a ploy to help bolster the Bush admin.'s claim. I would guess it is al a facade, right?
You accuse me of basing my opinion on speculation, yet you are basing your argument on things that the president only "implied". Not things that he really said. When I mention to you what the actual quote was, you say that doesn't matter it is what he implied.
How can you have a logical argument or discussion with someone that does not use logic?
Wow. It is amazing.
Originally posted by jimmac
Ok, sport. If you want to look at it that way. We were over due for a downturn. However it's all in how the downturn is handled. The president doesn't have control over the cycle. He does have an influence on cushioning the effect.
Bush has acknowledged that going to war and giving the tax cuts have led to the national debt. He also has said that he's willing to do that to protect the American people and troops, and try to kick-start the economy....and that's what the money is doing.
The debt will eventually be paid down (we've done it before), and yes, the middle class will probably shoulder the burden from most of that. Why? Because the "rich" are already paying a dramatically higher percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else in the country, and frankly the middle class is the largest group of everyone.
Nobody wants to be in debt, but it's probably better for the long-term to go into debt now than have the economy continue in a down-slide that will be harder and harder to dig ourselves out of as time goes on.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You guys should move to Israel or Afghanistan or Iraq if your think safety is entirely relative.
The fact that 9/11 proved to terror entities that a major attack on the US could be effected, opened the door for every wacky extremist group to follow suit. The fact that no other attack on US soil since proves that our government is taking serious measures to keep it's citizens safe as possible.
Giant, I know you will probably disagree with this, but who knows how many attempts have been thwarted by different agencies in our government.
Safety is relative, I will agree. But to state we are no safer than before 9/11 goes in the face of mounting evidence otherwise. And to imply that GWB is making token measures to achieve greater safety just because you are on the opposite end of the political spectrum, is blatantly irresponsible.
There are people on this earth that have decided that everything is America's and Israel's fault. They are banding together as we speek. They have decided that your life and the lives of your family should be cut short, if they have anything to do with it. You are the enemy, even if you think you are not. They care little about your political leanings. Stating "Wait, I am a liberal Democrat, I defend your cause!" will not save you from their hatred. Sending brotherly love or gifts will not make them like you. Understanding why they hate you will not prevent them from wanting to kill you. You and your children mean nothing to them, except maybe another notch on their gun-stalk. You should come to grips with sooner or later.
Like I said the greatest promoter of safety is involvement in your community.
Naples, I want you to read this post over, three times if you have to, and figure out why each part is fundamentally flawed.
The fact that you are operating at this level might even get you the
I don't see how you can expect anyone to have a conversation with you when you a spending so much time battling phantoms. The fact that you actually go around believing that what you say here has any relevance is really sad.
In any other situation I would say you are arguing against a fleet of intentionally built straw-men, but unfortunately it's all too clear that you actually believe that what you've constructed is actually true.
Call me when you've returned to planet earth.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Was it to benefit Halabuerten (wrong spelling)?
Yeah, you know what you're talking about.
I mean, doesn't it ever occur to you that you maybe need to actually spend some time learning about this stuff?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
For people interested. The potentially dangerous french planes where all checked, and people where questionned. Nothing was found.
What are you trying to hide, Powerdoc?!