Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 74

Thread: Whose really to blame

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 03:35 PM
    [b] Tail -

    Would you support or not support the Iraq War if not a single American life was lost during it?

    Would that change your view? How about if 25 soldiers had died, as opposed to 500...would that change your view?

    Personally, my number is 600. Anything less than or equal to 600 deaths and I support the war. As soon as the 601st death occurs, however, I will join the "Bush lied" crowd, because that's precisely how my mind works. [/b][/quote]
    Sadly 5-ever, you probably won't have to wait too long.

    The fact of the matter is that Bush made his case for this war using intelligence that he [b]KNEW[/b] was false, and now the soldiers and their families are paying the price for it. Shameful.

    Lastly, on this topic 5-ever, you have no credibility. Last year you said that you'd be P-ed off if no Iraqi WMD's were found. Now you don't even have the integrity to admit you were wrong.

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bite me Tail - I didn't say that. I said I'd be pissed if they stopped looking for them. Big difference.

    In fact - it looks like they may be allocatin resources away from the search. If so, I will be pissed and will admit it. I have admitted to being pissed at Bush for many things, including his handling of the intel investigation in this very thread.

    Bush knew it was false? Did Kerry know it was false when he testified to Congress and voted for the war? Kerry had access to this same intel many years before Bush did, and he advocated the use of force, yet you support Kerry and thrash Bush and have the nerve to talk about credibility? Laughable.

  3. #43
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 03:45 PM
    [b] The fact of the matter is that Bush made his case for this war using intelligence that he [b]KNEW[/b] was false, and now the soldiers and their families are paying the price for it. Shameful.

    [/b][/quote]
    Okay.....You've piqued my interest.....please elaborate.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 03:56 PM
    [b] Bite me Tail - I didn't say that. I said I'd be pissed if they stopped looking for them. Big difference.

    In fact - it looks like they may be allocatin resources away from the search. If so, I will be pissed and will admit it. I have admitted to being pissed at Bush for many things, including his handling of the intel investigation in this very thread.

    Bush knew it was false? Did Kerry know it was false when he testified to Congress and voted for the war? Kerry had access to this same intel many years before Bush did, and he advocated the use of force, yet you support Kerry and thrash Bush and have the nerve to talk about credibility? Laughable. [/b][/quote]
    That's not what you said and you know it. Anyway how many years should the search go on? Should it be passed on from one generation to the next?

    And now your threatening to be pissed again?

    Lame. <_<

    One example of Bush&#39;s gross abuse of intelligence was on full display during his 2003 State of the Union address when he spoke the now infamous 16 words- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." the President did not say that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with this assessment. He simply and deviously said, "the British government has learned."

    As we all now know, that allegation was false. It had already been debunked a year earlier by the U.S. intelligence community. Yet it was inlcuded in the President&#39;s State of the Union Address. Has any other State of the Union Address ever been so disgraced by such a blatant falsehood?

  5. #45
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 04:08 PM
    [b] One example of Bush&#39;s gross abuse of intelligence was on full display during his 2002 State of the Union address when he spoke the now infamous 16 words- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." the President did not say that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with this assessment. He simply and deviously said, "the British government has learned."

    As we all now know, that allegation was false. It had already been debunked a year earlier by the U.S. intelligence community. Yet it was inlcuded in the President&#39;s State of the Union Address. Has any other State of the Union Address ever been so disgraced by such a blatant falsehood? [/b][/quote]
    The allegation has been debunked ?.....

    By whom ?.....

    I guess you can make a case that a british government claim shouldn&#39;t make it&#39;s way into the presidents state of the union address without further verification but c&#39;mon.....is what he said really so terrible that you want to say those 16 words " disgraced " the SOU address especially since at the time british intelligence stated " the claim was based on extra material, seperate and independent from that of the U.S ".

    The statement was neither a " falsehood "...or..." debunked ".....

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET+Feb 4 2004, 04:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (MARYLAND JET @ Feb 4 2004, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 04:08 PM
    [b] One example of Bush&#39;s gross abuse of intelligence was on full display during his 2002 State of the Union address when he spoke the now infamous 16 words- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." the President did not say that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with this assessment. He simply and deviously said, "the British government has learned."

    As we all now know, that allegation was false. It had already been debunked a year earlier by the U.S. intelligence community. Yet it was inlcuded in the President&#39;s State of the Union Address. Has any other State of the Union Address ever been so disgraced by such a blatant falsehood? [/b][/quote]
    The allegation has been debunked ?.....

    By whom ?.....

    I guess you can make a case that a british government claim shouldn&#39;t make it&#39;s way into the presidents state of the union address without further verification but c&#39;mon.....is what he said really so terrible that you want to say those 16 words " disgraced " the SOU address especially since at the time british intelligence stated " the claim was based on extra material, seperate and independent from that of the U.S ".

    The statement was neither a " falsehood "...or..." debunked "..... [/b][/quote]
    I thought you lived in Maryland, but I see you&#39;ve moved to fantasyland&#33; :lol:

  7. #47
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    For the record I still live in Maryland { as opposed to fantasyland.....thank you very much }.....and.....I still fail to see where there was any falsehood in the statement.....or.....where anyone has debunked what the british government had alleged.

    Please enlighten me if you can PROVE differently.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 04:43 PM
    [b] For the record I still live in Maryland { as opposed to fantasyland.....thank you very much }.....and.....I still fail to see where there was any falsehood in the statement.....or.....where anyone has debunked what the british government had alleged.

    Please enlighten me if you can PROVE differently. [/b][/quote]
    Look buy a paper or something, I don&#39;t have the time of the inclination to prove this to you. Do you need me to prove that that sky is blue to you as well?

    Even the White House has acknowledged that now there is no proof that Iraq ever tried to import uranium from Africa. The problem is that they knew this before the president&#39;s State of the Union in January 2003.

  9. #49
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Tail - the British government to this very day stands by their intelligence and that assertion. The document concerning Niger was proven to be false. The British government has more intel than that and last I checked, Niger does not equal &#39;Africa.&#39; I agree that Bush shouldn&#39;t have said the statement shouldn&#39;t have been there...that was a cave to political pressure that IMO was stupid.

    You are simply engaged in a battle of wits and are unfortunately unarmed. How is being truthful, and saying the British government has learned, when it had&#33;, being devious?

    You are either a moron or a ditto-head, which one is it?

    Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Did Kerry know the intel was false when he spoke before congress during the Clinton years and advocated force? He also voted for the war. Why do you support him?

    Cause if Bush lied, Kerry lied. Surely you see that simple truth, right? Did they teach reading comprehension when you got your GED at nightschool, or were you absent that day?

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 04:52 PM
    [b] Tail - the British government to this very day stands by their intelligence and that assertion. The document concerning Niger was proven to be false. The British government has more intel than that and last I checked, Niger does not equal &#39;Africa.&#39; I agree that Bush shouldn&#39;t have said the statement shouldn&#39;t have been there...that was a cave to political pressure that IMO was stupid.

    You are simply engaged in a battle of wits and are unfortunately unarmed. How is being truthful, and saying the British government has learned, when it had&#33;, being devious?

    You are either a moron or a ditto-head, which one is it?

    Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Did Kerry know the intel was false when he spoke before congress during the Clinton years and advocated force? He also voted for the war. Why do you support him?

    Cause if Bush lied, Kerry lied. Surely you see that simple truth, right? Did they teach reading comprehension when you got your GED at nightschool, or were you absent that day? [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...Are you P-d off yet?

    Do you know how hypocritical you are?

    You insulting clown.

  11. #51
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 04:50 PM
    [b] Look buy a paper or something, I don&#39;t have the time of the inclination to prove this to you. Do you need me to prove that that sky is blue to you as well?

    Even the White House has acknowledged that now there is no proof that Iraq ever tried to import uranium from Africa. The problem is that they knew this before the president&#39;s State of the Union in January 2003. [/b][/quote]
    O.K.....first off.....your " buy a paper or something comment " is B.S.....If you&#39;re unable to prove your allegations against the president my suggestion { for what it&#39;s worth } would be.....DON&#39;T MAKE THEM.....

    Second.....the White House acknowledgement that you cite is completely irrelevant.....the president { again } was speaking of British intelligence sources who to this very day stand by their assertations.

    Whether the U.S had intel that was contrary or not doesn&#39;t make his statement either " a blatent falsehood " .....or....." debunked ".....as you previously stated and how you can say that there was a " gross abuse of intelligence " is beyond me.

  12. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 05:08 PM
    [b] Second.....the White House acknowledgement that you cite is completely irrelevant. [/b][/quote]
    So now even Bush&#39;s supporters are calling his White House irrelevant. :lol:

    Face it he&#39;s toast&#33;&#33;

  13. #53
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 04:52 PM
    [b] You are either a moron or a ditto-head, which one is it?

    [/b][/quote]
    I bettin that&#39;ll get under his skin &#33;.....

  14. #54
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Feb 4 2004, 05:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Feb 4 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MARYLAND JET[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 05:08 PM
    [b] Second.....the White House acknowledgement that you cite is completely irrelevant. [/b][/quote]
    So now even Bush&#39;s supporters are calling his White House irrelevant. :lol:

    Face it he&#39;s toast&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    You know what I mean.....

    Completely irrelevant to OUR disagreement.....

    And I guess if you&#39;ve gotta be toast.....then it&#39;s better to be a 2 term toast which is what he&#39;s gonna be &#33;......

  15. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MARYLAND JET[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 05:18 PM
    [b] And I guess if you&#39;ve gotta be toast.....then it&#39;s better to be a 2 term toast which is what he&#39;s gonna be &#33;...... [/b][/quote]
    Are you sure you&#39;re not living in Fantasyland?

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Bitonti, answer this one simple question: what evidence would it take for you to believe the war in Iraq is justified?

    I&#39;ll answer the question in reverse (to preempt you). I will believe the war in Iraq is BS when all of the below are proven true:

    a) Proof that Iraq didn&#39;t fire one shot against American pilots during the 12 year cease fire treaty.
    B) We don&#39;t find one WMD or associated programs constructed after 1991.
    c) Proof that Saddam never supported a terrorist since 1991 -- not one.
    d) When I see the memo from Haliburton ordering Cheney and Bush to go to war.
    e) When America seizes the Iraqi Oil Fields and deems them American property.
    f) The thousands of Iraqi mass graves were a hoax perpetrated by Israel.
    g) Democrats in Congress that voted for the war (based on the same intel Bush saw), prove their vote was coerced.

  17. #57
    I generally stay away from political threads because of the animosity involved. But I will say this:

    What really ought to be thought about is if both DEMS and REPS of the US, leaders of other countries, and members of the UN all agreed that WMD&#39;s were being made in Iraq before the war, and to think that they get this intelligence from agencies who could know the exact schedule of your bowel movements for the past 20 years if they wanted, shouldn&#39;t we be worrying WHERE these alleged WMD&#39;s may be :blink: :blink:

    There is a general agreed concencus that firearms and fugitives were being transported into Syria on a regular basis. Who is to say that the WMD&#39;s aren&#39;t there now??

    What worries me is the fact that if WMD&#39;s do in fact exist, who friggin hands are they in right now??

  18. #58
    ok i got a question

    leaving morals out of it

    How good is it that Saddam is gone, when the power that will replace him could actually be WORSE?

    as Boozer76 pointed out, if the WMD stockpile isn&#39;t in IRAQ then where is it and how are we as a nation any safer?

    the shi-ites are serious zealots and they are the statistical majority... the kurds have designs on Kirtuk oil fields, and the Sunni&#39;s are the old elites... all this adds up to either a Taliban style theocracy or out and out civil war

    not to mention the cost vs benefits ... the deficits Bush is racking up are INSANE. His budget projections are out and out LIES OF OMMISSION, not even considering the afghani or Iraq deployments

    where is this money coming from? are the "benefits" REALLY worth it?

    yeah i guess it would be nice to improve the quality of life in every ****hole worldwide but its not exactly feasible

    you call me partisan but wtf i thought republicans were supposed to cut spending not go ape-ass wild with money they don&#39;t have.

    by the time the next prez gets into office (either 2004 or 2008) the deficit will be of California proportions the only thing the poor sap will be able to do is declare a federal emergency.

    guns, butter and permanant tax cuts???

    to paraphrase will farrell in zoolander

    is everybody taking crazy pills? who really thinks this is gonna work??? :blink:

  19. #59
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Boozer76, Bitonti -


    Think about it logically. There are several possibilities.

    1) Saddam never had WMD stockpiles. So removing him or leaving doesn&#39;t affect our security.
    2) Saddam didn&#39;t have stockpiles, but retained the componentry, know-how and will to make them in the future...therefore removing him possibly makes us safer in the long run since he and his son were poised to rule Iraq for many decades to come.

    3) Saddam did had stockpiles that we simply haven&#39;t found yet. Thus, we are safer to have removed Saddam since he cannot use them.

    4) Saddam did have stockpiles but destroyed them and forgot to tell anyone. Thus, removing Saddam is a wash in terms of safety.

    5) Saddam did have stockpiles and moved them to some second party, possibly Syria. Thus, removing Saddam is a wash since some bad person was going to have them either way...Saddam or Country X. However, since the WMD were all produced in Iraq with Iraqi captial, labor and know-how, the WMD are less likely to increase in amount once moved to Syria since they do not have in infrastructure Saddam had. Had they stayed with Saddam in Iraq, Saddam would have been able to keep producing more of them. Removing Saddam, stopping their production and moving them to Syria most likely makes us safer because the production has stopped and Syria now knows (as Libya does) that the USA will not tolerant Ba&#39;athists who have WMD. And again, Saddam, Syria...in this case some rogue Ba&#39;athist had WMD prior to the war and now one has them after the war, except the most powerful of the leaders is no more. We are no less safe than before. It is important to remember that during the past 13 years we cannot think of Saddam&#39;s WMD as a single entity. He could produce what he wanted to. He could have sold some to terrorists or Syria for many years prior to 2003 AND made more for himself. He could have destroyed HIS WMD, yet Syria could retina the ones the previously obtained.)

    All of these possibilities are also based on the assumption that Saddam had not been selling or hiding WMD prior to this recent war. Perhaps inspectors didn&#39;t find anything in the 90&#39;s because Saddam had [i]already[/i] partnered with Syria to hide his WMD, in exchange for oil (there is a pipeline that runs through Syria).

    Any way you cut it, it is impossible to argue that the threat of Saddam&#39;s WMD is worse now that he has been removed. At worst it&#39;s a wash, at best (and IMO, most probably) we are much, much safer. Saddam had long pursued WMD, even during the sanctions imposed after 1991 and we know he had large amounts that were (and are still) unaccounted for. Saddam also knew that if he overtly used WMD at any time after 1991 that his ass was grass since the USA would not stand for it. His only present leverage to gain, then, from having WMD would be to partner with some second party (Syria, terrorists) with his WMD. We have since put a stop to that production line, if it existed.

    Yes, it is very important to find out exactly what happened to them. It always has been. It has been for 13 long years. We have not been "safe" from Saddam&#39;s WMD for the last 13 years any more than we were "safe" from Osama Bin Laden on September 10, 2001. We are finally addressing the problem head on.

    Finally - let me ask you this. If YOU are Syria and you have Saddam&#39;s WMD, what are you going to do with them? The only possible outlet for them would be to sell them to terrorists since using them yourself means that you will end up in a spider hole with lice. The threat of rogue states sharing their WMD with terrorists ALREADY EXISTED prior to this war. We have simply removed the biggest fish in that pond. The argument that we are LESS safe because of it is the height of stupidity and partisanship, IMO.

    This is also outside of the fact that Saddam was a wealthy supporter of terrorism whose country had several terrorist training camps.

  20. #60
    5ever im not answering your question until you answer mine

    what is gonna replace Saddam and how is that better?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us