You are a great spinner! I can post a transcript of the SOU speech that GWB gave. That was ONE of a handful of reasons he gave for deposing the leader. Those are the real facts. You are handpicking and leaving out all of the important context. They are not done looking in Iraq yet. They have many more people they need to talk to and/or capture there.
If you say so.
That was the main reason. The only reason this war got off the drawing board. Anything else wouldn't have convinced anyone to go along with it.
There is a guy named Monsor Ijaz who is a Fox news analyst. He stated last week that he knew of an individual that transported nuclear material into Iran for the SH regime. Now I know, you may impute him in some way or another, but I find him very credible and believable. If he is right, you will then have the "smoking gun" that you say does not exist. It will also open up a can of worms in Iran. He stated that this info may be made public in more detail within weeks.
MY OPINION HERE: Iran and other neighbors of Iraq may hold the key to evidence for WMD. i think SH moved it all out of the country. Possibly into Palestinian territory.
That is why I question your "end of story" statement. The story is being written as we speak. So if you must, stick to your story.
jimmac, you've fastened onto the perception that Bush pushed us into an unnecessary war against a country that did not pose a threat to the United States or other Western powers...have I got that right?
NaplesX, your argument is that there were more circumstances to the decision to go to war and that jimmac is oversimplifying the circumstances of the war, from start to finish...you've said as much.
jimmac, you've stated that you feel that the previous administration (Clinton) was responsible for the projected elimination of the national deficit. Please double-check me on this, but I believe that you should check with congress because they're the ones who delivered that baby, not the President.
One of the things that is so hard for Bush's political enemies to fight is the fact that Bush is a moderate in many ways and that he spends like a traditional Democrat - to his own political gain...again, just like a traditional Democrat.
I've stated here before that I personally believe we acted against Iraq about 6 months too soon, but that's my only complaint. When the United Nations refuses to uphold their own sanctions is when somebody has to take responsibility and act like a grownup.
The United States stepped up and took that responsiblity, regardless of the consequences. It amazes me that less than a year after this action was initiated that so many people have conveniently forgotten the transgressions Saddam Hussein was making against the sanctions the United People Of The World had imposed against his country.
But again, these people never wanted to enforce these sanctions in the first place. They were willing to forget that ten years of Saddam's broken promises had elapsed since the first application of sanctions. How much longer should the world have waited?
How does the United Nations ever expect to inherit the respect of the world if they cannot enforce their own policies?
Remember most of all: Wars suck.
So does the United Nations for allowing this to happen.
Don't think that they were "shocked" that it occurred. When all is said and done, most strategists will tell you that the UN took the safe road of neutrality while allowing the United States to act "unilaterally" (a falsehood some still perpetuate). This was a calculated action on the part of member nations, sparing them the burdens of war-costs while hoping to reap the benefits of post-war reconstruction.
This game is bigger than most of you people's ideals will allow.
If we get a rumor about a buncha Aussies in a disco somewhere about to be blown up, d'you want to be alerted about it before it happens, or do you just want us to phone CNN after it happens?
Afterall, we dumb ol' Americans don't want to be crying 'wolf' all the gosh-darn time. Just letcher mates die, then?
Aries 1B
PS: I hope that our/your Special Ops Guys skinned the scum who killed all those Aussies in that disco. Happy New Year.
As someone else said, huh?
I am talking about reports that are shown to lead nowhere.
This game is bigger than most of you people's ideals will allow.
Game. Nice.
drewprops, what you're saying is that the rest of the UN purposely didn't act because they wanted the US to do it instead. That way the rest of the UN could later then move into Iraq and make money without having lost any money going to war. That might even be less realistic than the 'we're winning the war on terror by encouraging the terrorists to move into Iraq and attack us there rather than fighting us in the US.'
Quote:
Originally posted by drewprops
It amazes me that less than a year after this action was initiated that so many people have conveniently forgotten the transgressions Saddam Hussein was making against the sanctions the United People Of The World had imposed against his country.
Saddam had lost most of his power. Look at the numbers drop. Why was it OK in 1991 for Bush not to attack when Hussein was killing as many as 250,000, but it's OK now when Saddam is comparatively neutered? His transgressions we no longer of genocidal magnitude.
Why go to war (remember, war sucks) if Saddam is neutered?
jimmac, you've fastened onto the perception that Bush pushed us into an unnecessary war against a country that did not pose a threat to the United States or other Western powers...have I got that right?
NaplesX, your argument is that there were more circumstances to the decision to go to war and that jimmac is oversimplifying the circumstances of the war, from start to finish...you've said as much.
jimmac, you've stated that you feel that the previous administration (Clinton) was responsible for the projected elimination of the national deficit. Please double-check me on this, but I believe that you should check with congress because they're the ones who delivered that baby, not the President.
One of the things that is so hard for Bush's political enemies to fight is the fact that Bush is a moderate in many ways and that he spends like a traditional Democrat - to his own political gain...again, just like a traditional Democrat.
I've stated here before that I personally believe we acted against Iraq about 6 months too soon, but that's my only complaint. When the United Nations refuses to uphold their own sanctions is when somebody has to take responsibility and act like a grownup.
The United States stepped up and took that responsiblity, regardless of the consequences. It amazes me that less than a year after this action was initiated that so many people have conveniently forgotten the transgressions Saddam Hussein was making against the sanctions the United People Of The World had imposed against his country.
But again, these people never wanted to enforce these sanctions in the first place. They were willing to forget that ten years of Saddam's broken promises had elapsed since the first application of sanctions. How much longer should the world have waited?
How does the United Nations ever expect to inherit the respect of the world if they cannot enforce their own policies?
Remember most of all: Wars suck.
So does the United Nations for allowing this to happen.
Don't think that they were "shocked" that it occurred. When all is said and done, most strategists will tell you that the UN took the safe road of neutrality while allowing the United States to act "unilaterally" (a falsehood some still perpetuate). This was a calculated action on the part of member nations, sparing them the burdens of war-costs while hoping to reap the benefits of post-war reconstruction.
This game is bigger than most of you people's ideals will allow.
Stamping your feet doesn't help.
First of all what I said was it was a mixture of good times and a president who wasn't afraid to raise taxes. Get quotes right. In other words many circumstances came together to allow this to happen. Making it unlikely to even have a chance to happen while Mr. Bush is in office ( remember he likes to give the people what they want to hear not what they need ).
Also what we're talking about here is the president presented a falsehood in order to get this going. How many times do I have to say this or is it you guys with blinders don't speak english?
He lied. Period. Please don't try to revise history here. This is the reason he was able to get it past UN, the other countries, the senate, and the american people.
There is a guy named Monsor Ijaz who is a Fox news analyst. He stated last week that he knew of an individual that transported nuclear material into Iran for the SH regime. Now I know, you may impute him in some way or another, but I find him very credible and believable. If he is right, you will then have the "smoking gun" that you say does not exist. It will also open up a can of worms in Iran. He stated that this info may be made public in more detail within weeks.
MY OPINION HERE: Iran and other neighbors of Iraq may hold the key to evidence for WMD. i think SH moved it all out of the country. Possibly into Palestinian territory.
That is why I question your "end of story" statement. The story is being written as we speak. So if you must, stick to your story.
How much do you want to bet we don't here anything more about this? Your basing your argument on something that hasn't happened. Hows that for guessing?
Why do you find this guy credible? Because he says what you want to hear? Someone's word ( from fox news ) doesn't count. I want to see a cache of WOMD and a way to deploy them to us in such a way as to pose a threat worthy of war. Nothing short of that will excuse this war.
Yeah I don't hold much truck on last-minute surprise witnesses until I've heard their testimony....it's a "he said" kind of argument in the absence of evidence.
Yes Bunge, I am that cynical...I would believe that the members of the UN are capable of playing what I called "games" (a sad term I know) with the issue of Iraq.
The UN is an absolute political organization. It wants to be the ultimate political organization but the member nations can't get along for a suitably lengthy duration in order for that to occur. The UN isn't Starfleet, it isn't The Federation. It is an organization that allows known terrorist states to sit on the security council.
I've got more but guests just arrived...I'll be back!!
How much do you want to bet we don't here anything more about this? Your basing your argument on something that hasn't happened. Hows that for guessing?
My opinion was formed long ago on this matter. My argument is straight forward and is not based on this one tidbit. Please, try to stay away from the spinning.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Why do you find this guy credible? Because he says what you want to hear? Someone's word ( from fox news ) doesn't count. I want to see a cache of WOMD and a way to deploy them to us in such a way as to pose a threat worthy of war. Nothing short of that will excuse this war.
He is credible. He has some very impressive credits and accolades. http://www.saja.org/ijaz.html for more info. or search for Monsoor Ijaz.
A quote from that site. but I am sure there are many others:
"He appears regularly on a variety of financial and political news programs for CNN, CNNI, Fox News, BBC, Germany's ARD TV, Japan's NHK, ABC and NBC. He has commented for Public Broadcasting System's Newshour with Jim Lehrer and ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel, and serves as Foreign Affairs and Terrorism Analyst for Fox News Network."
Am I to dismiss his opinion for yours? Based on what? You or I will not most likely reach his experience in these matters.
Yes Bunge, I am that cynical...I would believe that the members of the UN are capable of playing what I called "games" (a sad term I know) with the issue of Iraq.
I don't question your cynicism, I'm plenty cynical myself. It's the incredibility of your claim. It's too impossible setup the scenario, just like the idea that invading Iraq would pull all the terrorists into a fight in Iraq. It's a silly proposition.
You can use it to rationalize for yourself, but I don't think it holds any water for anyone else.
Why go to war (remember, war sucks) if Saddam is neutered?
My opinion was formed long ago on this matter. My argument is straight forward and is not based on this one tidbit. Please, try to stay away from the spinning.
He is credible. He has some very impressive credits and accolades. http://www.saja.org/ijaz.html for more info. or search for Monsoor Ijaz.
A quote from that site. but I am sure there are many others:
"He appears regularly on a variety of financial and political news programs for CNN, CNNI, Fox News, BBC, Germany's ARD TV, Japan's NHK, ABC and NBC. He has commented for Public Broadcasting System's Newshour with Jim Lehrer and ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel, and serves as Foreign Affairs and Terrorism Analyst for Fox News Network."
Am I to dismiss his opinion for yours? Based on what? You or I will not most likely reach his experience in these matters.
Fox news is notorious for a conservative viewpoint.
I know you formed your opinion long ago on this. It's obvious.
What remains is that this is his opinion. You're so big on facts. Well the fact of the matter is we've found no WOMD to date. My feeling is this will amount to nothing as so many other claims that said " any day now we'll find those WOMD. "
Your arguments are based on many tid bits that are speculation and hearsay. Mine are based on one thing..........FACT : WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY WOMD TO DATE! AFTER ALL THIS TIME WE AREN'T LIKELY TO EITHER!
No NaplesX. Not even a hint that they were there. Now if he had them in such quantity as to constitute a threat to us ( and a way to deploy them ) how could Saddam covered them up from the inspectors and how could he have got rid of them so quickly? To think that's possible is a stretch in itself. Of course this argument is silly. Time is on your side or so you would see it. What I mean is that 20 years could pass and you would still be saying " we'll find those WOMD any day now. "
Fox news is notorious for a conservative viewpoint.
I know you formed your opinion long ago on this. It's obvious.
What remains is that this is his opinion. You're so big on facts. Well the fact of the matter is we've found no WOMD to date. My feeling is this will amount to nothing as so many other claims that said " any day now we'll find those WOMD. "
Your arguments are based on many tid bits that are speculation and hearsay. Mine are based on one thing..........FACT : WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY WOMD TO DATE! AFTER ALL THIS TIME WE AREN'T LIKELY TO EITHER!
No NaplesX. Not even a hint that they were there. Now if he had them in such quantity as to constitute a threat to us ( and a way to deploy them ) how could Saddam covered them up from the inspectors and how could he have got rid of them so quickly? To think that's possible is a stretch in itself. Of course this argument is silly. Time is on your side or so you would see it. What I mean is that 20 years could pass and you would still be saying " we'll find those WOMD any day now. "
No I say we will have them or proof of where they are within 6 months to a year.
I am not unrealistic, if credible proof comes our way that says it was all a hoax I will definitely change course. But as I said, proof and facts are still coming in, I would just suggest we wait till it is all in. Am I asking for 20 years? NO. I am saying give the miltary and the Intel agencies time to get a handle on things there. Remember we are still inside a year and we have done a lot. You and like minded ones jumped down the CIC's throat almost immediately on this one. Let it come to an end naturally. If he lied, fine you have a case and history will not be kind on him. Let the facts reveal themselves. I would like to see teeth gnashing and hand wringing to go away see what happens.
No I say we will have them or proof of where they are within 6 months to a year.
I am not unrealistic, if credible proof comes our way that says it was all a hoax I will definitely change course. But as I said, proof and facts are still coming in, I would just suggest we wait till it is all in. Am I asking for 20 years? NO. I am saying give the miltary and the Intel agencies time to get a handle on things there. Remember we are still inside a year and we have done a lot. You and like minded ones jumped down the CIC's throat almost immediately on this one. Let it come to an end naturally. If he lied, fine you have a case and history will not be kind on him. Let the facts reveal themselves. I would like to see teeth gnashing and hand wringing to go away see what happens.
You mean just forget about it and in 6 months to a year everyone will have forgotten it.
No I think we should still challenge these far fetched claims that there still might be something to find. Go on searching if you must but I think we need to bring this to light well before the next election. Because if there aren't any to be found that has far reaching implications for Bush. If he's guilty of misleading us for his own ends then I and many others want him out of the Whitehouse.
You mean just forget about it and in 6 months to a year everyone will have forgotten it.
No I think we should still challenge these far fetched claims that there still might be something to find. Go on searching if you must but I think we need to bring this to light well before the next election. Because if there aren't any to be found that has far reaching implications for Bush. If he's guilty of misleading us for his own ends then I and many others want him out of the Whitehouse.
Will you stop saying that!
What motives are you talking about? Are you implying some nefarious plot? What is it? Of course he had motives, everyone does. Maybe he thought it was the right thing to do. So I guess he is evil for trying to do what he thought was right. Maybe he just made a mistake. I thought that just made a president more human (flashback to Clinton) and likable. Then again maybe he was totally justified.
I did not say forget about it. Just reserve some of the harshness and judgment until all of the facts are in. Do you get it? Untill the facts are all in. All of the facts, you know, the facts, the data, the skinny...
I did not say forget about it. Just reserve some of the harshness and judgment until all of the facts are in. Do you get it? Untill the facts are all in. All of the facts, you know, the facts, the data, the skinny...
This might be all we get and right now he looks guilty as hell.
What motives are you talking about? Are you implying some nefarious plot? What is it? Of course he had motives, everyone does. Maybe he thought it was the right thing to do. So I guess he is evil for trying to do what he thought was right. Maybe he just made a mistake. I thought that just made a president more human (flashback to Clinton) and likable. Then again maybe he was totally justified.
Stop the spin, I am getting dizzy.
Well then just as Clinton he apologize at the very least.
Unlike Clinton many people gave their lives for what dubbya thought was right. In this case if it was the end jutifying the means then yes he's evil.
Geez I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing!
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you say so.
Not because he says so, he says so because it's true.
Originally posted by bunge
Not because he says so, he says so because it's true.
Yup! This is the point you're always missing NaplesX.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are a great spinner! I can post a transcript of the SOU speech that GWB gave. That was ONE of a handful of reasons he gave for deposing the leader. Those are the real facts. You are handpicking and leaving out all of the important context. They are not done looking in Iraq yet. They have many more people they need to talk to and/or capture there.
If you say so.
That was the main reason. The only reason this war got off the drawing board. Anything else wouldn't have convinced anyone to go along with it.
End of story.
MY OPINION HERE: Iran and other neighbors of Iraq may hold the key to evidence for WMD. i think SH moved it all out of the country. Possibly into Palestinian territory.
That is why I question your "end of story" statement. The story is being written as we speak. So if you must, stick to your story.
jimmac, you've fastened onto the perception that Bush pushed us into an unnecessary war against a country that did not pose a threat to the United States or other Western powers...have I got that right?
NaplesX, your argument is that there were more circumstances to the decision to go to war and that jimmac is oversimplifying the circumstances of the war, from start to finish...you've said as much.
jimmac, you've stated that you feel that the previous administration (Clinton) was responsible for the projected elimination of the national deficit. Please double-check me on this, but I believe that you should check with congress because they're the ones who delivered that baby, not the President.
One of the things that is so hard for Bush's political enemies to fight is the fact that Bush is a moderate in many ways and that he spends like a traditional Democrat - to his own political gain...again, just like a traditional Democrat.
I've stated here before that I personally believe we acted against Iraq about 6 months too soon, but that's my only complaint. When the United Nations refuses to uphold their own sanctions is when somebody has to take responsibility and act like a grownup.
The United States stepped up and took that responsiblity, regardless of the consequences. It amazes me that less than a year after this action was initiated that so many people have conveniently forgotten the transgressions Saddam Hussein was making against the sanctions the United People Of The World had imposed against his country.
But again, these people never wanted to enforce these sanctions in the first place. They were willing to forget that ten years of Saddam's broken promises had elapsed since the first application of sanctions. How much longer should the world have waited?
How does the United Nations ever expect to inherit the respect of the world if they cannot enforce their own policies?
Remember most of all: Wars suck.
So does the United Nations for allowing this to happen.
Don't think that they were "shocked" that it occurred. When all is said and done, most strategists will tell you that the UN took the safe road of neutrality while allowing the United States to act "unilaterally" (a falsehood some still perpetuate). This was a calculated action on the part of member nations, sparing them the burdens of war-costs while hoping to reap the benefits of post-war reconstruction.
This game is bigger than most of you people's ideals will allow.
Stamping your feet doesn't help.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
If we get a rumor about a buncha Aussies in a disco somewhere about to be blown up, d'you want to be alerted about it before it happens, or do you just want us to phone CNN after it happens?
Afterall, we dumb ol' Americans don't want to be crying 'wolf' all the gosh-darn time. Just letcher mates die, then?
Aries 1B
PS: I hope that our/your Special Ops Guys skinned the scum who killed all those Aussies in that disco. Happy New Year.
As someone else said, huh?
I am talking about reports that are shown to lead nowhere.
Not just once, but again, and again.
Got to love all that knee jerking.
Originally posted by drewprops
This game is bigger than most of you people's ideals will allow.
Game. Nice.
drewprops, what you're saying is that the rest of the UN purposely didn't act because they wanted the US to do it instead. That way the rest of the UN could later then move into Iraq and make money without having lost any money going to war. That might even be less realistic than the 'we're winning the war on terror by encouraging the terrorists to move into Iraq and attack us there rather than fighting us in the US.'
Originally posted by drewprops
It amazes me that less than a year after this action was initiated that so many people have conveniently forgotten the transgressions Saddam Hussein was making against the sanctions the United People Of The World had imposed against his country.
Saddam had lost most of his power. Look at the numbers drop. Why was it OK in 1991 for Bush not to attack when Hussein was killing as many as 250,000, but it's OK now when Saddam is comparatively neutered? His transgressions we no longer of genocidal magnitude.
Why go to war (remember, war sucks) if Saddam is neutered?
You're not covering any new ground.
Originally posted by drewprops
hehehe....who says it's true Bunge....you?
jimmac, you've fastened onto the perception that Bush pushed us into an unnecessary war against a country that did not pose a threat to the United States or other Western powers...have I got that right?
NaplesX, your argument is that there were more circumstances to the decision to go to war and that jimmac is oversimplifying the circumstances of the war, from start to finish...you've said as much.
jimmac, you've stated that you feel that the previous administration (Clinton) was responsible for the projected elimination of the national deficit. Please double-check me on this, but I believe that you should check with congress because they're the ones who delivered that baby, not the President.
One of the things that is so hard for Bush's political enemies to fight is the fact that Bush is a moderate in many ways and that he spends like a traditional Democrat - to his own political gain...again, just like a traditional Democrat.
I've stated here before that I personally believe we acted against Iraq about 6 months too soon, but that's my only complaint. When the United Nations refuses to uphold their own sanctions is when somebody has to take responsibility and act like a grownup.
The United States stepped up and took that responsiblity, regardless of the consequences. It amazes me that less than a year after this action was initiated that so many people have conveniently forgotten the transgressions Saddam Hussein was making against the sanctions the United People Of The World had imposed against his country.
But again, these people never wanted to enforce these sanctions in the first place. They were willing to forget that ten years of Saddam's broken promises had elapsed since the first application of sanctions. How much longer should the world have waited?
How does the United Nations ever expect to inherit the respect of the world if they cannot enforce their own policies?
Remember most of all: Wars suck.
So does the United Nations for allowing this to happen.
Don't think that they were "shocked" that it occurred. When all is said and done, most strategists will tell you that the UN took the safe road of neutrality while allowing the United States to act "unilaterally" (a falsehood some still perpetuate). This was a calculated action on the part of member nations, sparing them the burdens of war-costs while hoping to reap the benefits of post-war reconstruction.
This game is bigger than most of you people's ideals will allow.
Stamping your feet doesn't help.
First of all what I said was it was a mixture of good times and a president who wasn't afraid to raise taxes. Get quotes right. In other words many circumstances came together to allow this to happen. Making it unlikely to even have a chance to happen while Mr. Bush is in office ( remember he likes to give the people what they want to hear not what they need ).
Also what we're talking about here is the president presented a falsehood in order to get this going. How many times do I have to say this or is it you guys with blinders don't speak english?
He lied. Period. Please don't try to revise history here. This is the reason he was able to get it past UN, the other countries, the senate, and the american people.
Originally posted by NaplesX
There is a guy named Monsor Ijaz who is a Fox news analyst. He stated last week that he knew of an individual that transported nuclear material into Iran for the SH regime. Now I know, you may impute him in some way or another, but I find him very credible and believable. If he is right, you will then have the "smoking gun" that you say does not exist. It will also open up a can of worms in Iran. He stated that this info may be made public in more detail within weeks.
MY OPINION HERE: Iran and other neighbors of Iraq may hold the key to evidence for WMD. i think SH moved it all out of the country. Possibly into Palestinian territory.
That is why I question your "end of story" statement. The story is being written as we speak. So if you must, stick to your story.
How much do you want to bet we don't here anything more about this? Your basing your argument on something that hasn't happened. Hows that for guessing?
Why do you find this guy credible? Because he says what you want to hear? Someone's word ( from fox news ) doesn't count. I want to see a cache of WOMD and a way to deploy them to us in such a way as to pose a threat worthy of war. Nothing short of that will excuse this war.
Yes Bunge, I am that cynical...I would believe that the members of the UN are capable of playing what I called "games" (a sad term I know) with the issue of Iraq.
The UN is an absolute political organization. It wants to be the ultimate political organization but the member nations can't get along for a suitably lengthy duration in order for that to occur. The UN isn't Starfleet, it isn't The Federation. It is an organization that allows known terrorist states to sit on the security council.
I've got more but guests just arrived...I'll be back!!
Originally posted by jimmac
How much do you want to bet we don't here anything more about this? Your basing your argument on something that hasn't happened. Hows that for guessing?
My opinion was formed long ago on this matter. My argument is straight forward and is not based on this one tidbit. Please, try to stay away from the spinning.
Originally posted by jimmac
Why do you find this guy credible? Because he says what you want to hear? Someone's word ( from fox news ) doesn't count. I want to see a cache of WOMD and a way to deploy them to us in such a way as to pose a threat worthy of war. Nothing short of that will excuse this war.
He is credible. He has some very impressive credits and accolades. http://www.saja.org/ijaz.html for more info. or search for Monsoor Ijaz.
A quote from that site. but I am sure there are many others:
"He appears regularly on a variety of financial and political news programs for CNN, CNNI, Fox News, BBC, Germany's ARD TV, Japan's NHK, ABC and NBC. He has commented for Public Broadcasting System's Newshour with Jim Lehrer and ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel, and serves as Foreign Affairs and Terrorism Analyst for Fox News Network."
Am I to dismiss his opinion for yours? Based on what? You or I will not most likely reach his experience in these matters.
Originally posted by drewprops
Yes Bunge, I am that cynical...I would believe that the members of the UN are capable of playing what I called "games" (a sad term I know) with the issue of Iraq.
I don't question your cynicism, I'm plenty cynical myself. It's the incredibility of your claim. It's too impossible setup the scenario, just like the idea that invading Iraq would pull all the terrorists into a fight in Iraq. It's a silly proposition.
You can use it to rationalize for yourself, but I don't think it holds any water for anyone else.
Why go to war (remember, war sucks) if Saddam is neutered?
Originally posted by NaplesX
My opinion was formed long ago on this matter. My argument is straight forward and is not based on this one tidbit. Please, try to stay away from the spinning.
He is credible. He has some very impressive credits and accolades. http://www.saja.org/ijaz.html for more info. or search for Monsoor Ijaz.
A quote from that site. but I am sure there are many others:
"He appears regularly on a variety of financial and political news programs for CNN, CNNI, Fox News, BBC, Germany's ARD TV, Japan's NHK, ABC and NBC. He has commented for Public Broadcasting System's Newshour with Jim Lehrer and ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel, and serves as Foreign Affairs and Terrorism Analyst for Fox News Network."
Am I to dismiss his opinion for yours? Based on what? You or I will not most likely reach his experience in these matters.
Fox news is notorious for a conservative viewpoint.
I know you formed your opinion long ago on this. It's obvious.
What remains is that this is his opinion. You're so big on facts. Well the fact of the matter is we've found no WOMD to date. My feeling is this will amount to nothing as so many other claims that said " any day now we'll find those WOMD. "
Your arguments are based on many tid bits that are speculation and hearsay. Mine are based on one thing..........FACT : WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY WOMD TO DATE! AFTER ALL THIS TIME WE AREN'T LIKELY TO EITHER!
No NaplesX. Not even a hint that they were there. Now if he had them in such quantity as to constitute a threat to us ( and a way to deploy them ) how could Saddam covered them up from the inspectors and how could he have got rid of them so quickly? To think that's possible is a stretch in itself. Of course this argument is silly. Time is on your side or so you would see it. What I mean is that 20 years could pass and you would still be saying " we'll find those WOMD any day now. "
Originally posted by jimmac
Fox news is notorious for a conservative viewpoint.
I know you formed your opinion long ago on this. It's obvious.
What remains is that this is his opinion. You're so big on facts. Well the fact of the matter is we've found no WOMD to date. My feeling is this will amount to nothing as so many other claims that said " any day now we'll find those WOMD. "
Your arguments are based on many tid bits that are speculation and hearsay. Mine are based on one thing..........FACT : WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY WOMD TO DATE! AFTER ALL THIS TIME WE AREN'T LIKELY TO EITHER!
No NaplesX. Not even a hint that they were there. Now if he had them in such quantity as to constitute a threat to us ( and a way to deploy them ) how could Saddam covered them up from the inspectors and how could he have got rid of them so quickly? To think that's possible is a stretch in itself. Of course this argument is silly. Time is on your side or so you would see it. What I mean is that 20 years could pass and you would still be saying " we'll find those WOMD any day now. "
No I say we will have them or proof of where they are within 6 months to a year.
I am not unrealistic, if credible proof comes our way that says it was all a hoax I will definitely change course. But as I said, proof and facts are still coming in, I would just suggest we wait till it is all in. Am I asking for 20 years? NO. I am saying give the miltary and the Intel agencies time to get a handle on things there. Remember we are still inside a year and we have done a lot. You and like minded ones jumped down the CIC's throat almost immediately on this one. Let it come to an end naturally. If he lied, fine you have a case and history will not be kind on him. Let the facts reveal themselves. I would like to see teeth gnashing and hand wringing to go away see what happens.
Originally posted by NaplesX
No I say we will have them or proof of where they are within 6 months to a year.
I am not unrealistic, if credible proof comes our way that says it was all a hoax I will definitely change course. But as I said, proof and facts are still coming in, I would just suggest we wait till it is all in. Am I asking for 20 years? NO. I am saying give the miltary and the Intel agencies time to get a handle on things there. Remember we are still inside a year and we have done a lot. You and like minded ones jumped down the CIC's throat almost immediately on this one. Let it come to an end naturally. If he lied, fine you have a case and history will not be kind on him. Let the facts reveal themselves. I would like to see teeth gnashing and hand wringing to go away see what happens.
You mean just forget about it and in 6 months to a year everyone will have forgotten it.
No I think we should still challenge these far fetched claims that there still might be something to find. Go on searching if you must but I think we need to bring this to light well before the next election. Because if there aren't any to be found that has far reaching implications for Bush. If he's guilty of misleading us for his own ends then I and many others want him out of the Whitehouse.
Originally posted by jimmac
You mean just forget about it and in 6 months to a year everyone will have forgotten it.
No I think we should still challenge these far fetched claims that there still might be something to find. Go on searching if you must but I think we need to bring this to light well before the next election. Because if there aren't any to be found that has far reaching implications for Bush. If he's guilty of misleading us for his own ends then I and many others want him out of the Whitehouse.
Will you stop saying that!
What motives are you talking about? Are you implying some nefarious plot? What is it? Of course he had motives, everyone does. Maybe he thought it was the right thing to do. So I guess he is evil for trying to do what he thought was right. Maybe he just made a mistake. I thought that just made a president more human (flashback to Clinton) and likable. Then again maybe he was totally justified.
Stop the spin, I am getting dizzy.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I did not say forget about it. Just reserve some of the harshness and judgment until all of the facts are in. Do you get it? Untill the facts are all in. All of the facts, you know, the facts, the data, the skinny...
This might be all we get and right now he looks guilty as hell.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Will you stop saying that!
What motives are you talking about? Are you implying some nefarious plot? What is it? Of course he had motives, everyone does. Maybe he thought it was the right thing to do. So I guess he is evil for trying to do what he thought was right. Maybe he just made a mistake. I thought that just made a president more human (flashback to Clinton) and likable. Then again maybe he was totally justified.
Stop the spin, I am getting dizzy.
Well then just as Clinton he apologize at the very least.
Unlike Clinton many people gave their lives for what dubbya thought was right. In this case if it was the end jutifying the means then yes he's evil.
Geez I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing!
Originally posted by jimmac
This might be all we get and right now he looks guilty as hell.
Please. Your democrat compatriots will not let that happen.
I guess through "bush hating glasses" he looks like the devil too.