It does, you say they are character assassinations, I say they are the white house defending itself, or a little of both.
The transcript that fox produced brought this all to a head, that is why I use that as a reference.
This transcript did not bring this to a head. The Bush "Defense" to Clarke's "Alligations" brought this to a head. The Bush administration releasing the name of an annonomous source brought this to a head (remember Mrs. Plame?)
No, I did NOT forget my history. To what history are YOU elluding too BTW. I love these shallow assertions without justification. I take the time to justify myself why don't you?
Please? You're taking a position and then gathering sand to support it. See if you can tell me. What country did the US fight a war against back in the early 90's? What country was in violation of cease fire agreements and UN resolution? What country did the US and UK have to patrol no fly zones over? What country was the US able to get support from its neighbors to invaded to end the rule of a dangerous dictator?
Answer all those questions and never again ask the stupid question of, " Why not Iran, Syria, Libya" and the like.
Please? You're taking a position and then gathering sand to support it. See if you can tell me. What country did the US fight a war against back in the early 90's? What country was in violation of cease fire agreements and UN resolution? What country did the US and UK have to patrol no fly zones over? What country was the US able to get support from its neighbors to invaded to end the rule of a dangerous dictator?
Answer all those questions and never again ask the stupid question of, " Why not Iran, Syria, Libya" and the like.
OK killer, see if you van teel me which country in the history of the world has ended terrorism by acts of war? Which country is responsible for 911 (hint killer, its not Iraq). Which terrorsit group did we all but elliminate by not using war? This is all inconsequential because I asked a silly rhetorical question which you honed in on instead of addressing the issue of Clarke. Subterfuge...
Also, lets look back at the actual context of the question:
my initial respone:
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did
was rhetorical in nature to:
According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
posted by deviant.
We had Saddam contained. He had no weapons programs as we have found, nor will they. The UN inspectors had said the same thing yet we still attacked.
Wow this sounds a lot like what Clarke is saying because we did focus our attention on a two-bit dictator instead of looking for and diisrupting global terrorism.
So, when was the last time you said to yourself "Saddam is the biggest threat to world safety." My guess is pretty often, but up to and following 911 most people would have pointed a finger at Al Qua'ida. Rember the Cole. An attack not carried out by Saddam. Rember the airbase in Saudi Arabia? Again not Saddam. Rember Kenya? Not Saddam. Rember the first WTC? Not Saddam.
He had no weapons programs as we have found, nor will they. The UN inspectors had said the same thing yet we still attacked.
...
We did find weapons programs. Real and imagined. There's no doubt that Saddam was pursuing programs and would again as soon as he had the UN off his back and EU dollars from oil sales.
Oh you're still stuck on the whole Iraq==911 thing.
How about this. What country was the US in defending it against Iraq that got bin Laden so pissed off at us in the first place?
No, our defense of Kuwait isn't what torqued Saddam. Or staying in Saudi Arabia after the war is what mad OBL mad. Why did Saddam enter Kuwait? Hmmmm. A little more history. Saddam attacked Kuwait because of the debts he encured during the war with Iran. The war were we played both sides of the fence...
My opinion was SH was contained. In the face of current evidence it seems he was also. How many WMD did we find? How many UAV's did we find. How many ICBM's did we find?
Also, you said Iraq == 911: That is counter to what I've stated. Iraq != 911. Saddam's harboring of one terrorist wanted by the US is no different than Syria, and Iran harboring terrorists.
Again, this is not about Clarke now is it? You seem to have a pention for diverting the conversation toward other ends.
We did find weapons programs. Real and imagined. There's no doubt that Saddam was pursuing programs and would again as soon as he had the UN off his back and EU dollars from oil sales.
What weapons. The UN found weapons.... Hmmm, the UN inspections were working imagine that. Wait, lets not focus ourselves on the WOT and attack Iraq. Also, we were sold a war on immenenent threat. Asperations for weapons programs (BushCo shift in focus when they realized there were no programs) is not an immenent threat... N.Korea and Iran, now there are some weapons programs. I ask my question again. Why didn't we invade Iran? They harbor terrorists. They abducted US citizens. They had/have WMD programs. Why not Iran?
No, our defense of Kuwait isn't what torqued Saddam. Or staying in Saudi Arabia after the war is what mad OBL mad.
OBL was pretty pissed off that we were desecrating the holly land.
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Why did Saddam enter Kuwait? Hmmmm. A little more history. Saddam attacked Kuwait because of the debts he encured during the war with Iran. The war were we played both sides of the fence...
Both sides? We helped Saddam with some intel. What did we do for Iran? Hostages for weapons?
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
My opinion was SH was contained. In the face of current evidence it seems he was also. How many WMD did we find? How many UAV's did we find. How many ICBM's did we find?
We found one rather unimpressive UAV and we all know about Saddam's missile program with North Korea. Not to mention the other weapons programs Saddam was trying to support while his people were suctioning off the money while doing nothing. That aint no contained. You're just saying that now to use as an excuse to be against the war. It's one of the lamest arguments going.
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Also, you said Iraq == 911: That is counter to what I've stated. Iraq != 911. Saddam's harboring of one terrorist wanted by the US is no different than Syria, and Iran harboring terrorists.
I didn't say Iraq==911. I said you are stuck on Iraq=911.
Also (and I already made this point) we didn't have troops and major air fields ready to go against those countries. Nor did we have neighboring countries that wanted to be rid ... do I have to go over it again?
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Again, this is not about Clarke now is it? You seem to have a pention for diverting the conversation toward other ends.
This thread was off track long ago. You're the one that mentioned all those other countries. So I answered you. Don't point the finger at me and call me off topic.
What weapons. The UN found weapons.... Hmmm, the UN inspections were working imagine that. Wait, lets not focus ourselves on the WOT and attack Iraq. Also, we were sold a war on immenenent threat. Asperations for weapons programs (BushCo shift in focus when they realized there were no programs) is not an immenent threat... N.Korea and Iran, now there are some weapons programs. I ask my question again. Why didn't we invade Iran? They harbor terrorists. They abducted US citizens. They had/have WMD programs. Why not Iran?
he said weapons programs, not weapons. you can have a program without having physical weapons to show for it.
OBL was pretty pissed off that we were desecrating the holly land.
Both sides? We helped Saddam with some intel. What did we do for Iran? Hostages for weapons?
We found one rather unimpressive UAV and we all know about Saddam's missile program with North Korea. Not to mention the other weapons programs Saddam was trying to support while his people were suctioning off the money while doing nothing. That aint no contained. You're just saying that now to use as an excuse to be against the war. It's one of the lamest arguments going.
I didn't say Iraq==911. I said you are stuck on Iraq=911.
Also (and I already made this point) we didn't have troops and major air fields ready to go against those countries. Nor did we have neighboring countries that wanted to be rid ... do I have to go over it again?
This thread was off track long ago. You're the one that mentioned all those other countries. So I answered you. Don't point the finger at me and call me off topic.
Another point of history. Iran-Contra was significantly AFTER the Iran hostage situation. Plus we gave weapons as well as intel. We played both sides so that one wouldn't win with enough authory thus swinging the middle east one way or the other. Read my entire post also.
he said weapons programs, not weapons. you can have a program without having physical weapons to show for it.
I know he said programs. And yes you can have a program without the weapon. My point was we were told it was an immenent treat because SH HAD the weapons. We had inspectors on the ground already. Sh had asperations for programs just like most two-bit dictators.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
It does, you say they are character assassinations, I say they are the white house defending itself, or a little of both.
The transcript that fox produced brought this all to a head, that is why I use that as a reference.
This transcript did not bring this to a head. The Bush "Defense" to Clarke's "Alligations" brought this to a head. The Bush administration releasing the name of an annonomous source brought this to a head (remember Mrs. Plame?)
Originally posted by dmz
Originally posted by Scott
No that's not why at all. You forget your history.
P.S. there are other reasons such as the Neo-Con ideal of rebuilding the Middle East by establishing a US friendly democracy.
Originally posted by faust9
P.S. there are other reasons such as the Neo-Con ideal of rebuilding the Middle East by establishing a US friendly democracy.
The US government helping promote US-friendly democracy?
Sounds good to me.
Unless it is like: "We're friends, right?"
Originally posted by Jubelum
The US government helping promote US-friendly democracy?
Sounds good to me.
Unless it is like: "We're friends, right?"
Yeah, kind of like we used to be friends with Saddam.
(Re: Iran, early 80s)
"Strange bedfollows" doesn't even START to describe that fscked up situation.
Originally posted by faust9
No, I did NOT forget my history. To what history are YOU elluding too BTW. I love these shallow assertions without justification. I take the time to justify myself why don't you?
Please? You're taking a position and then gathering sand to support it. See if you can tell me. What country did the US fight a war against back in the early 90's? What country was in violation of cease fire agreements and UN resolution? What country did the US and UK have to patrol no fly zones over? What country was the US able to get support from its neighbors to invaded to end the rule of a dangerous dictator?
Answer all those questions and never again ask the stupid question of, " Why not Iran, Syria, Libya" and the like.
Originally posted by Scott
Please? You're taking a position and then gathering sand to support it. See if you can tell me. What country did the US fight a war against back in the early 90's? What country was in violation of cease fire agreements and UN resolution? What country did the US and UK have to patrol no fly zones over? What country was the US able to get support from its neighbors to invaded to end the rule of a dangerous dictator?
Answer all those questions and never again ask the stupid question of, " Why not Iran, Syria, Libya" and the like.
OK killer, see if you van teel me which country in the history of the world has ended terrorism by acts of war? Which country is responsible for 911 (hint killer, its not Iraq). Which terrorsit group did we all but elliminate by not using war? This is all inconsequential because I asked a silly rhetorical question which you honed in on instead of addressing the issue of Clarke. Subterfuge...
Also, lets look back at the actual context of the question:
my initial respone:
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did
was rhetorical in nature to:
According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
posted by deviant.
We had Saddam contained. He had no weapons programs as we have found, nor will they. The UN inspectors had said the same thing yet we still attacked.
Wow this sounds a lot like what Clarke is saying because we did focus our attention on a two-bit dictator instead of looking for and diisrupting global terrorism.
So, when was the last time you said to yourself "Saddam is the biggest threat to world safety." My guess is pretty often, but up to and following 911 most people would have pointed a finger at Al Qua'ida. Rember the Cole. An attack not carried out by Saddam. Rember the airbase in Saudi Arabia? Again not Saddam. Rember Kenya? Not Saddam. Rember the first WTC? Not Saddam.
How about this. What country was the US in defending it against Iraq that got bin Laden so pissed off at us in the first place?
Originally posted by faust9
...
We had Saddam contained.
Your opinion.
Originally posted by faust9
...
He had no weapons programs as we have found, nor will they. The UN inspectors had said the same thing yet we still attacked.
...
We did find weapons programs. Real and imagined. There's no doubt that Saddam was pursuing programs and would again as soon as he had the UN off his back and EU dollars from oil sales.
Originally posted by Scott
Oh you're still stuck on the whole Iraq==911 thing.
How about this. What country was the US in defending it against Iraq that got bin Laden so pissed off at us in the first place?
No, our defense of Kuwait isn't what torqued Saddam. Or staying in Saudi Arabia after the war is what mad OBL mad. Why did Saddam enter Kuwait? Hmmmm. A little more history. Saddam attacked Kuwait because of the debts he encured during the war with Iran. The war were we played both sides of the fence...
My opinion was SH was contained. In the face of current evidence it seems he was also. How many WMD did we find? How many UAV's did we find. How many ICBM's did we find?
Also, you said Iraq == 911: That is counter to what I've stated. Iraq != 911. Saddam's harboring of one terrorist wanted by the US is no different than Syria, and Iran harboring terrorists.
Again, this is not about Clarke now is it? You seem to have a pention for diverting the conversation toward other ends.
Originally posted by Scott
Your opinion.
We did find weapons programs. Real and imagined. There's no doubt that Saddam was pursuing programs and would again as soon as he had the UN off his back and EU dollars from oil sales.
What weapons. The UN found weapons.... Hmmm, the UN inspections were working imagine that. Wait, lets not focus ourselves on the WOT and attack Iraq. Also, we were sold a war on immenenent threat. Asperations for weapons programs (BushCo shift in focus when they realized there were no programs) is not an immenent threat... N.Korea and Iran, now there are some weapons programs. I ask my question again. Why didn't we invade Iran? They harbor terrorists. They abducted US citizens. They had/have WMD programs. Why not Iran?
Originally posted by faust9
No, our defense of Kuwait isn't what torqued Saddam. Or staying in Saudi Arabia after the war is what mad OBL mad.
OBL was pretty pissed off that we were desecrating the holly land.
Originally posted by faust9
Why did Saddam enter Kuwait? Hmmmm. A little more history. Saddam attacked Kuwait because of the debts he encured during the war with Iran. The war were we played both sides of the fence...
Both sides? We helped Saddam with some intel. What did we do for Iran? Hostages for weapons?
Originally posted by faust9
My opinion was SH was contained. In the face of current evidence it seems he was also. How many WMD did we find? How many UAV's did we find. How many ICBM's did we find?
We found one rather unimpressive UAV and we all know about Saddam's missile program with North Korea. Not to mention the other weapons programs Saddam was trying to support while his people were suctioning off the money while doing nothing. That aint no contained. You're just saying that now to use as an excuse to be against the war. It's one of the lamest arguments going.
Originally posted by faust9
Also, you said Iraq == 911: That is counter to what I've stated. Iraq != 911. Saddam's harboring of one terrorist wanted by the US is no different than Syria, and Iran harboring terrorists.
I didn't say Iraq==911. I said you are stuck on Iraq=911.
Also (and I already made this point) we didn't have troops and major air fields ready to go against those countries. Nor did we have neighboring countries that wanted to be rid ... do I have to go over it again?
Originally posted by faust9
Again, this is not about Clarke now is it? You seem to have a pention for diverting the conversation toward other ends.
This thread was off track long ago. You're the one that mentioned all those other countries. So I answered you. Don't point the finger at me and call me off topic.
Originally posted by faust9
What weapons. The UN found weapons.... Hmmm, the UN inspections were working imagine that. Wait, lets not focus ourselves on the WOT and attack Iraq. Also, we were sold a war on immenenent threat. Asperations for weapons programs (BushCo shift in focus when they realized there were no programs) is not an immenent threat... N.Korea and Iran, now there are some weapons programs. I ask my question again. Why didn't we invade Iran? They harbor terrorists. They abducted US citizens. They had/have WMD programs. Why not Iran?
he said weapons programs, not weapons. you can have a program without having physical weapons to show for it.
Originally posted by Scott
OBL was pretty pissed off that we were desecrating the holly land.
Both sides? We helped Saddam with some intel. What did we do for Iran? Hostages for weapons?
We found one rather unimpressive UAV and we all know about Saddam's missile program with North Korea. Not to mention the other weapons programs Saddam was trying to support while his people were suctioning off the money while doing nothing. That aint no contained. You're just saying that now to use as an excuse to be against the war. It's one of the lamest arguments going.
I didn't say Iraq==911. I said you are stuck on Iraq=911.
Also (and I already made this point) we didn't have troops and major air fields ready to go against those countries. Nor did we have neighboring countries that wanted to be rid ... do I have to go over it again?
This thread was off track long ago. You're the one that mentioned all those other countries. So I answered you. Don't point the finger at me and call me off topic.
Another point of history. Iran-Contra was significantly AFTER the Iran hostage situation. Plus we gave weapons as well as intel. We played both sides so that one wouldn't win with enough authory thus swinging the middle east one way or the other. Read my entire post also.
Originally posted by rageous
he said weapons programs, not weapons. you can have a program without having physical weapons to show for it.
I know he said programs. And yes you can have a program without the weapon. My point was we were told it was an immenent treat because SH HAD the weapons. We had inspectors on the ground already. Sh had asperations for programs just like most two-bit dictators.
Originally posted by Scott
Yes and Saddam was hiding the programs from them. 1441 violation!
1441 wasn't authorization for war. If we had waited we could have gotten UN backing thus no 150BILLION debt paid for you and me.
Originally posted by rageous
I wasn't trying to substantiate either of your arguments, just clarifying what was said.
Ok, Thanks.