Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 97

Thread: cmon, the WMD threat was overblown

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]"Chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained," Bush said in a speech to religious broadcasters in February 2003. "Secretly, without fingerprints, Saddam Hussein could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists or help them develop their own. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He's a threat to the United States of America."

    This was the president talking, not the CIA. Note that he's not telling us we should wage war against the evil Hussein for humanitarian reasons -- that was not the central rationale then, though it is now -- but because Hussein posed a threat to us that we have learned he did not.

    Yesterday, Bush defended his decision to go after the nation that "once had the worst government in the Middle East." And he implied that Libyan disarmament was a byproduct of his actions in Iraq. [b]Even if that's true, Bush's current argument is a much-revised version of his original case for war.[/b]

    "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," declared national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sept. 8, 2002. The same weekend, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "Imagine a Sept. 11 with weapons of mass destruction. It's not 3,000; it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children." And Vice President Cheney spoke with utter certainty about Hussein: "We know we have a part of the picture, and that part of the picture tells us that he is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."

    Again, was it the CIA at fault here or was the administration determined to do all it could to get us to buy into a war it was already determined to fight? What "values" freed it to exaggerate the flimsy evidence it had ("we know we have part of the picture") to get Americans thinking that Saddam Hussein could turn one of our cities into a Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

    Did the phony claims influence the course of the debate on the war? Of course they did. Listen to Sen. Pat Roberts, the loyal Republican from Kansas, in response to Tim Russert's question on "Meet the Press" as to whether what Roberts knows now would have led him to change his vote on the war.

    "I don't know if I would have or not," replied Roberts, the intelligence committee chairman. "I think the whole premise would have changed, I think the whole debate would have changed, and I think that the response would have changed in terms of any kind of military plans." As for his colleagues' votes for the war, Roberts said: "I doubt if the votes would have been there."

    Bush gave a powerful speech in York, Pa., last week describing his "values." He declared: "The culture of America is changing from one that has said 'If it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else' to a culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life."

    That's a great idea. Applying it to the president means that he, not the CIA, is responsible for the case that was made for the war in Iraq. By the president's own logic, he can't blame a bunch of bureaucrats ("if you've got a problem, blame somebody else") for his administration's eagerness to offer the most lopsided picture possible of the threat Hussein posed.

    [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45366-2004Jul12.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul12.html[/url][/b][/quote]

    lets be completely honest here people when we were talking about going to war a couple years ago EVERYONE was talking about WMD and how scary they were.

    here we are, no WMD in sight yet nearly all the president's supporters on the site still believe that war was justified? why?

    without the WMD threat we wouldn't have gone to war. Period.

    Im not gonna say Bush lied, but i will say he was wrong. His mistakes cost this country billions of dollars and nearly a thousand American lives. Tens of thousands Americans with life-changing injuries, and everyone who went there will never be the same. War shouldn't be entered into lightly, yet we did so, and for that Bush does not deserve another term. End of story.

    you want to talk about fighting the war on terror step 1 is lockind the borders, step 2 is telling Saudi Arabia and the rest of the middle east (including Israel) to f--k off...

    everything else we do is toward some other agenda, probably energy. The only way this war makes any sense is if we are fighting it for natural resources.

    we aren't talking about blowjobs we are talking about Americans dying, being maimed, having nightmares for the rest of their life...

    for what? how much safer are we when every two weeks Tom Ridge and Condi Rice are on the tube talking about impending terror attacks? Heck even OBL is chillin somewhere making/carrying out his next plan... oh but don't worry cause Iraq is well on that decades long journey to democracy - Please. sell that s**t to someone who is dumb enough to buy it.

    let's be real folks this President has been awful. Don't even start me on the deficits he is racking up... what do you think the budgets will balence themselves by magic? osmosis? irresponsible isn't even the word for the way Bush is raping the treasury to pay for this Iraqi extravanaza, plus the tax breaks, plus a thousand and one other pieces of pork. It just doesn't add up.

    when a massechusets liberal democrat will absolutely positively be a more fiscally responsible President than the guy who is in there now, what does that say about the guy in there now? he's beyond incompetant. What is the upshot to all this reckless spending - the trickle down effect? where are we trickling to, Iraq?

    the whole thing stinks to high heaven. At this point i serious don't know if John Kerry can be anything but a mediocre President... but let me tell you guys when we are talking about George W Bush, mediocre would be an improvement.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    bangor, maine
    Posts
    2,860
    Post Thanks / Like
    so basically what you're saying is you believe Sadam Hussein deserves to still be in power, where he can kill his own citizens all day long and not comply to the demands of the United Nations without facing punishment?

    okay :)

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by blackout806[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 02:16 AM
    [b] so basically what you're saying is you believe Sadam Hussein deserves to still be in power, where he can kill his own citizens all day long and not comply to the demands of the United Nations without facing punishment?
    [/b][/quote]
    please tell me in 50 words or less why I should give a s**t about what Saddam Hussain does to the Iraqi people.

    there are dictators in Africa that condone the cutting off of women's clitorises... ya don't see the US invading those hellholes...

    also i find it hilarious how supporters of the President talk mad crap about the UN... that is until it is conveient for them to include it in an argument justifying the war...

    the UN is either an organization of worthless pu$$ies or an institution to be respected.

    Supporters of Bush, please pick one and stick with it.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]the UN is either an organization of worthless pu$$ies or an institution to be respected.
    [/b][/quote]


    LOL -- The UN [u]is[/u] an Organization of worthless pu$$ies that is [u]SUPPOSED[/u] to be an institution to be respected.


    But the reality is we want Oil a new base and another puppet regime to control.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bitonti - you have gone on record at least twenty separate times that I can remember saying that you'd have opposed this war even if we did find huge stockpiles of WMD, so spare me your righteous indignation at their apparent absence. Saddam had WMD that were unaccounted for, and did not cooperate with inspections for 12 long years. He did not prove that he had disarmed nor destroyed his WMD and wouldn't even allow his own scientists to be interviewed without a Ba'ath Party member present. It would have been negligent to assume that he didn't have them and didn't intend to keep manufacturing them. The sanctions on Saddam were losing their effectiveness because of the Oil for Food program, which enriched Saddam and subverted the intent of the sanctions, which was to cripple him financially and to isolate him politically. That program enriched him and gave him political capital with UN countries like France and Russia. Also - now we have discovered that Saddam likely was seeking to buy yellowcake from Niger, that Joe Wilson was full of sh*t and that the Russians believed that Saddam had been planning a terrorist attack on our shores. There are also Saddam's irrefutable ties to terrorism in general and AQ in particular (sorry, this simply isn't a debatable point.) We have also found small amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq and over 1200 material violations of WMD-Related programs in Iraq, so clearly, his interest in WMD was far more than theoretical. The WMD were [i]one [/i]of the legit reasons for war, Saddam's ties to terrorism being another, and the prospects of fundamental regional change yet another. You are one of the loudest whiners about how we "prop up despots" who create poverty and resentment towards the West and want us to go after "root causes." Yet, when we do that in Iraq, and give the people a chance to run their own country and enrich themselves, you whine even more.

    In 1991, Saddam's nuclear and WMD programs and stockpiles were actually MUCH FARTHER ALONG than our intelligence services had thought possible. We were wrong then, only in the other direction. Ditto for Libya recently. Some sh*tbag dictator like Khaddafi has WMD, but it is insane to think Saddam did, even though Bush d*cked around at the UN for almost 9 months prior to invading, giving Saddam ample time to destroy, hide or smuggle out his WMD? Put that sh*t on toast. Leaders have to make decisions based on intel knowing that by its very nature it is not a sure thing. Every one of those congressman who voted to authorize the use of force had access to the same intel that Bush did. Every government in the UN believed that Saddam had WMD and believed it because they knew that he had not cooperated with WMD or proven what he had done with them. It is what Clinton believed, what Kerry believed, what Madeline Albright believed, what Jacques Chirac believed. If you are going to say Bush was "wrong" you have to say all of them, plus every member of Congress was wrong. We would have NEVER known unless we invaded. Inspectors were not allowed in Iraq from 1998 to 2002, when Bush parked 250,000 troops on Saddam's doorstep. During that time, Saddam was making billions from his Oil for Food trade, had a friendlier reception from Europe, and no UN inspectors to hide from. He only agreed to inspections after Bush's saber-rattling and even THEN didn't cooperate, even according to Hans Blix! What was Bush supposed to think, especially based on what had been longstanding and official US policy of regime change in Iraq, even under his predecessor?

    You are HILARIOUS, talking about people being "stupid" enough to buy this or that and over simplifying what you know to be complex issues. Oooohhh, your solution is to, "tell the ME to f*ck off." Trenchent, practical, and detailed. Why oh why hasn't anyone else figured that out. I could see Andrew Card in a meeting, "Hey, guys, I just had an idea...why don't we just get all of the ME countires on conference call and just say "f-off?" And another guy says, "Brilliant, that will end terrorism and all of their citizens will love us!!!!!!"

    The word "Halliburton" is all the evidence Bitonti and his ilk ever need to believe any wild conspiracy theory that involves our President, yet considerable evidence of Saddam's ties to terrorism, AQ, WMD and pursuits of nuclear weapons are just "lies" or "frauds." Whatever.

    FYI - I WISH the UN was just worthless. It is worse than worthless, it is corrupt and dangerous.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetFanTransplant[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 06:35 AM
    [b] [But the reality is we want Oil a new base and another puppet regime to control. [/b][/quote]
    If that was true the Iraqis would not be having public elections later this year. That remark was very lame. Sorry ;)

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    saddam was killing the same religious nuts that we are now killing!..but we did get the oil and put a puupet regime in there that will allow us to build PERMANET bases..the empire contines

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    We have permanent bases all over the world including Japan, and Germany. (2 other countries we fought and beat) Whats wrong with having bases abroad??

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Stroudsburg, PA
    Posts
    3,456
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 09:33 AM
    [b] saddam was killing the same religious nuts that we are now killing!..but we did get the oil and put a puupet regime in there that will allow us to build PERMANET bases..the empire contines [/b][/quote]
    Since [i]we[/i] apparently got the oil, anyone mind telling me when I'll be able to buy a gallon of gas for less than 1.89 ?!?

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,592
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 08:55 AM
    [b] Bitonti - you have gone on record at least twenty separate times that I can remember saying that you'd have opposed this war even if we did find huge stockpiles of WMD, so spare me your righteous indignation at their apparent absence. Saddam had WMD that were unaccounted for, and did not cooperate with inspections for 12 long years. He did not prove that he had disarmed nor destroyed his WMD and wouldn't even allow his own scientists to be interviewed without a Ba'ath Party member present. It would have been negligent to assume that he didn't have them and didn't intend to keep manufacturing them. The sanctions on Saddam were losing their effectiveness because of the Oil for Food program, which enriched Saddam and subverted the intent of the sanctions, which was to cripple him financially and to isolate him politically. That program enriched him and gave him political capital with UN countries like France and Russia. Also - now we have discovered that Saddam likely was seeking to buy yellowcake from Niger, that Joe Wilson was full of sh*t and that the Russians believed that Saddam had been planning a terrorist attack on our shores. There are also Saddam's irrefutable ties to terrorism in general and AQ in particular (sorry, this simply isn't a debatable point.) We have also found small amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq and over 1200 material violations of WMD-Related programs in Iraq, so clearly, his interest in WMD was far more than theoretical. The WMD were [i]one [/i]of the legit reasons for war, Saddam's ties to terrorism being another, and the prospects of fundamental regional change yet another. You are one of the loudest whiners about how we "prop up despots" who create poverty and resentment towards the West and want us to go after "root causes." Yet, when we do that in Iraq, and give the people a chance to run their own country and enrich themselves, you whine even more.

    In 1991, Saddam's nuclear and WMD programs and stockpiles were actually MUCH FARTHER ALONG than our intelligence services had thought possible. We were wrong then, only in the other direction. Ditto for Libya recently. Some sh*tbag dictator like Khaddafi has WMD, but it is insane to think Saddam did, even though Bush d*cked around at the UN for almost 9 months prior to invading, giving Saddam ample time to destroy, hide or smuggle out his WMD? Put that sh*t on toast. Leaders have to make decisions based on intel knowing that by its very nature it is not a sure thing. Every one of those congressman who voted to authorize the use of force had access to the same intel that Bush did. Every government in the UN believed that Saddam had WMD and believed it because they knew that he had not cooperated with WMD or proven what he had done with them. It is what Clinton believed, what Kerry believed, what Madeline Albright believed, what Jacques Chirac believed. If you are going to say Bush was "wrong" you have to say all of them, plus every member of Congress was wrong. We would have NEVER known unless we invaded. Inspectors were not allowed in Iraq from 1998 to 2002, when Bush parked 250,000 troops on Saddam's doorstep. During that time, Saddam was making billions from his Oil for Food trade, had a friendlier reception from Europe, and no UN inspectors to hide from. He only agreed to inspections after Bush's saber-rattling and even THEN didn't cooperate, even according to Hans Blix! What was Bush supposed to think, especially based on what had been longstanding and official US policy of regime change in Iraq, even under his predecessor?

    You are HILARIOUS, talking about people being "stupid" enough to buy this or that and over simplifying what you know to be complex issues. Oooohhh, your solution is to, "tell the ME to f*ck off." Trenchent, practical, and detailed. Why oh why hasn't anyone else figured that out. I could see Andrew Card in a meeting, "Hey, guys, I just had an idea...why don't we just get all of the ME countires on conference call and just say "f-off?" And another guy says, "Brilliant, that will end terrorism and all of their citizens will love us!!!!!!"

    The word "Halliburton" is all the evidence Bitonti and his ilk ever need to believe any wild conspiracy theory that involves our President, yet considerable evidence of Saddam's ties to terrorism, AQ, WMD and pursuits of nuclear weapons are just "lies" or "frauds." Whatever.

    FYI - I WISH the UN was just worthless. It is worse than worthless, it is corrupt and dangerous. [/b][/quote]
    Well put.

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Since we apparently got the oil, anyone mind telling me when I'll be able to buy a gallon of gas for less than 1.89 ?!?
    [/b][/quote]

    Never. The days of cheap gas are over.

    I have a question for 5ever and those who agree with his rationale. Lets assume everything you say is correct and there is plausible justification for going to war with Iraq. Don't you think the timing was poor? Don't you think the troops were streched too thin? Don't you think we should have completed the task in Afghanistan first?

  12. #12
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 02:09 AM
    [b] here we are, no WMD in sight yet nearly all the president's supporters on the site still believe that war was justified? why?

    without the WMD threat we wouldn't have gone to war. Period.
    [/b][/quote]
    Bush is sworn to defend the United States against all threats. The threat of WMD was acknowledged by virtually everyone (don't make me break out the parade of quotes from high-ranking liberals and Democrats again). The disagreement was over how to act to defend the United States against the threat.

    If you don't care for the way Bush carried out his sworn duties, then don't vote for him in November.

    It's that simple.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    The war in Iraq WAS justified to some degree.....

    .....it was just timed and tactic'd badly.

    Afganistan should have been completely finished first, with a solid Democratic Govt., no Warlords running around, no terrorists still active and OBL captured (even if it took going into Pakistan, who obviously supports terrorism by having him there).

    And I also belive Iran was and is a larger potential threat to the USA than Iraq was/is. Iran is only 2 years away from having a Nucelar weapon (per US sources). Iran openly supports Terrorsim abroad, including AQ and Hezbollah). And their leadership is much more extremem in their Islamic fundamentalism that Saddam ever was. The invasion of Iraq should have been secondary to an invasion of Iran IMO. If Iraq is justified, Iran was MORE justifed, in other words.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    "sometimes leaders have to make decisions based on intel"

    it appears our leader was hellbent & very narrowminded about intel. It's no secret the general jist of intel instructions was to find reasons to invade Iraq. period. Link him with terrorism. That is not good leadership. That is wrong & deceitful leadership of the worst kind.

    the situation at the time was twisted to fit the agenda. Not the leadership of a fair & openminded president, but of a stubborn texan not willing to open his mind to anything other than the agenda of a few dangerous thinkers.

    "even according to hans blix'

    blix was against invading Iraq

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 10:02 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Since we apparently got the oil, anyone mind telling me when I'll be able to buy a gallon of gas for less than 1.89 ?!?
    [/b][/quote]

    Never. That days of cheap gas are over.

    I have a question for 5ever and those who agree with his rationale. Lets assume everything you say is correct and there is plausible justification for going to war with Iraq. Don't you think the timing was poor? Don't you think the troops were streched too thin? Don't you think we should have completed the task in Afghanistan first? [/b][/quote]
    Section -

    Let me answer those as best I can:

    As far as timing being poor, I do think so in a both a macro sense and a micro sense. Macro, in terms if the USA proper and not George Bush...I think that when Saddam defiance was known, we should have invaded and taken him out. All the sanctions did was cause Iraqi civilians to suffer, and cost us money in the form on troops and fly-overs and lost trade with Iraq. Also, OBL was able to recruit new terrorists by using our defiling of the Holy Land and the plight of Iraqis as a cause. Had we responded as soon as Saddam began defying us - because he did destroy a lot of weapons immediately afetr the 91 war - we could have eased the suffering from the sanctions, removed our troops from Saudi Arabia within a reasonable period of time (perhaps) and perhaps we would have had a more receptive climate at the UN, since the Oil for Food program would not have existed and Saddam's menaces would have been a lot closer in terms of time - a matter of a couple years, as opposed to over 10.

    In terms of the micro, and Bush in particular: Yes, I think he wasted far too much time at the UN, and lost us our element of surprise. It's a tough thing, because perhaps he would not have gotten broad support in Congres had he not made overtures to the UN, by un doing so, he wasted time and gave Saddam ample opportunity to prepare and destroy documents, weapons, etc. I think wasting so much time at the UN was a HUGE mistake by Bush, especially in light of the obviousness of the fact that they would have never gotten a resolution passed due to the veto power of a few nations.

    In terms of Afghanistan, you could perhaps be right. I don't know. You have to remember that there are more "international" troops in Afghanistan than most realize, so simply comparing the # of Americans in both places is misleading. That said, there is always room for second guessing.

    In terms of the timing of invading Iraq, I do not believe inspections should have been given more time. Saddam had had enough, IMO. In terms of stretching our troops too thin, you may have a point. I don't have nearly enough specialized oR specific knowledge about such matters, but I do think we should have been and still be using more overwhelming force than we are, especially in Fallujah and against al Sadr. So, perhaps it is simply a number of troops, or perhaps it is not making them fight with one arm tied behind their backs. But your general point is a good one, IMO. I have no problem separating procedural mistakes from substantive ones, and there have been many. I think we probably should have been less concerned with fighting "fair" and more concerned with winning. I think Bush should be more honest about the setbacks we've suffered. I think that disbanding the Iraqi army without pay was a huge mistake, I think trusting Chalabi was a long-term US mistake by our intel and both administrations, I think having Jay Garner in there was probably a bad move initially, but one that they realized quickly and tried to rememdy, deoending on one's view of Bremer's abilities. I also think that some things just simply didn't go our way, or were unforeseen, not due to poor planning or incompetence, but simply the vagaries of war. Our rapid drive towards Bagdhad may have been a mistake since we didn't adequately pacify the cities and areas that we bypassed, however I can understand the need to deal a "death blow" and to race to the oil feild to protect them from sabotage. Also, many of the Iraqi Army seemed to have dissipated into the crowds, with their guns, which made the peace-keeping operation all the more difficult. I also think that by being soft on the looting initially was a tactical error, since it likely fostered a sense of lawlessness and chaos, when some initially unpopular and perhaps even brutal-seeming suppression of looters may have gone a long way towards establishing respect for law and order. Also, it was a bad move politically, because many areas with sensitive documents, which could have helped the cause for war are believed to have been looted from places like the Oil Ministry, and labs, etc.

    By "finish" the task in Afghanistan, are you simply referring to the capture of one man, or the completion of the rebuilding process? Because the rebuilding process, even if pursued aggressively, takes many many years and woldn't have been 'finished' by now even if we didn't invade Iraq in March 2003. Also, if Bush truly believed what I wrote earlier, than it would be almost impossible to then justify waiting X number of years to invade Saddam while Afghanistan takes baby steps. But, in general terms, if your over-arching point is that we diverted resources away from Afghanistan, to Iraq, and that Afghanistan suffered as a result, I would be inclined to agree with you.

    Unfortunately, Bush is a flawed leader who has made mistakes...just like all of them before him and after him. I agree with the JUSTIFICATION of the Iraq War, but am not as happy about it's prosecution, although I do think some of the shouts of "incompetence" are simply unfair since we knew going in that it would be tough. However, Bush has made a strategic and political mistake by not being forthcoming enough about setbacks. Not talking about childish snipes at him not going to funerals or whatever, I am talking about making speeches, prime-time, hour-long speeches devoted to frank discussion about what is going on...both good and bad. GOPers and conervatives in general seem to paint too rosy a picture. Yes, things are not as bad as they seem, but they aren't great either, you know?

    In the end, we all have to get reasonably informed and make our choices about who to support, knowing full well that a level of trust, or, for lack of a better worf, faith goes into it. If someone thinks that the war was unjustified, or even worse, a cynical power grab or "oil" conspircay, I can't do much to sway that conviction, and I agree that all of the procedural errors coupled with that substantive error probably make you hate Bush. I simply don't share that level of disdain, and frankly don't see much substance to any of the other options that are championed. All canidates speak in cliches and generalities and aren't frank. They talk about "reducing risks and costs" or "reaching out" and that sounds great and all, but isn't specific anough to be even dicussable.

    There's a lot about Bush that makes me want to puke at the thought of voting for him. But vote for him I will, mostly because he is reflection of our times in that no one comes even close to being an attractive candidate for me, and he is the least unattractive.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by joewilly[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 10:17 AM
    [b] "sometimes leaders have to make decisions based on intel"

    it appears our leader was hellbent & very narrowminded about intel. It's no secret the general jist of intel instructions was to find reasons to invade Iraq. period. Link him with terrorism. That is not good leadership. That is wrong & deceitful leadership of the worst kind.

    the situation at the time was twisted to fit the agenda. Not the leadership of a fair & openminded president, but of a stubborn texan not willing to open his mind to anything other than the agenda of a few dangerous thinkers.

    "even according to hans blix'

    blix was against invading Iraq [/b][/quote]
    JW - did you read the recent Senateoral Committee's report, or just read news stories about it? It completely exonerates Bush and says that WMD intel was not manipulated or hyped, just wrong...inaccurate. It's very specific, actually. And Saddam [b]was[/b] linked to terrorism.

    Blix was against invading Iraq, but he also concluded that Iraq was not cooperating with inspections and had not yet nor ever made a "fundamental decision to disarm." He simply disagreed about the method of disarmament...force or inspections. Blix did NOT say, "Saddam cooperated 100%, showed us everything, even stuff we didn't know about, answered all of our questions, and after our complete and thorough examination, we conclude that he had no material violations of any kind."

    How did Bush hype or manipulate intel, when the intel he used was 100% consistent witht the previous administration used and cited, and made themso convinced of Saddam's danger and threat to America that the official policy of the USA was switched from containment to regime change during their term?

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 02:09 AM
    [b] here we are, no WMD in sight yet nearly all the president's supporters on the site still believe that war was justified? why?

    [/b][/quote]
    Iraq was a terrorist state under the control of a terrorist leader.....we let the situation fester in Afgahnistan for almost six years and look what happened.

    If you continue to put your head in the sand then the scum-muslim wahabi's will truly believe America is a paper-tiger and instead of situations like Libya surrendering you will have more-and-more state sponsored terror.

    Plain and simple.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    What people also forget is Saddam is one of the few countries that actually speaks out and tells people that their goal is to harm the US. I agree some countries prove to be potential threats, but Saddam continually tells his people they must destroy us.

    People feel we shouldve done something to stop 9/11 because we "knew" something, well since we knew Saddam was threatening us and an attack is imminent, isnt it a bit hypocritical to say we shouldnt do something against Iraq?

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by TheBrodyMan[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 10:42 AM
    [b] What people also forget is Saddam is one of the few countries that actually speaks out and tells people that their goal is to harm the US. I agree some countries prove to be potential threats, but Saddam continually tells his people they must destroy us.

    People feel we shouldve done something to stop 9/11 because we "knew" something, well since we knew Saddam was threatening us and an attack is imminent, isnt it a bit hypocritical to say we shouldnt do something against Iraq? [/b][/quote]
    Brody...I think you are right on but people will argue Sadaam did not pose an "imminent threat". What they forget is by the time a threat is imminent it is too late to do much of anything.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Jul 13 2004, 09:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Jul 13 2004, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheBrodyMan[/i]@Jul 13 2004, 10:42 AM
    [b] What people also forget is Saddam is one of the few countries that actually speaks out and tells people that their goal is to harm the US. I agree some countries prove to be potential threats, but Saddam continually tells his people they must destroy us.

    People feel we shouldve done something to stop 9/11 because we "knew" something, well since we knew Saddam was threatening us and an attack is imminent, isnt it a bit hypocritical to say we shouldnt do something against Iraq? [/b][/quote]
    Brody...I think you are right on but people will argue Sadaam did not pose an "imminent threat". What they forget is by the time a threat is imminent it is too late to do much of anything. [/b][/quote]
    Absolutely, but it goes to show you how dumb people can be.

    Sabah Khodada told the US papers how dangerous Saddam is to the US. He told the papers, "We all met with Saddam personally. And he told us we have to take revenge from America. Our duty is to attack and hit American targets from the Gulf, in the Arab world, and all over the world. He said that openly. When you volunteer to become Saddam&#39;s fighter...they will tell you the purpose of your volunteering is to attack American targets and American interests, not only in Iraq, not only in the Gulf, [but] all over the world, including Europe and America."

    Sabah Khodada was a former captain in the Iraqi Army, in the mid-1990&#39;s (after the Gulf War). If you dont think that this was being told to the Iraqi soldiers in the 21st century, theres nothing I can do to change your stubborn mind.

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