dmc said:
Amen!! :beer: :flag:
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Bush asked to explain UK war memo
- Thread starter dmc
- Start date
Amen!! :beer: :flag:
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
thetrailboss said:
Thanks... and one more thing..
I don't want people shoving their religious ideals down my throat... I have my own belief set - thank you very much...
Stephen
New member
Re: Rivercoil wrote:
They already can, thanks to our pourous borders... but that's another discussion.
OK, brief history lesson: So the UN states that there are WMDs in Iraq. We go back and say "where are they?" Iraq says "What WMDs"? We say, "the ones you showed the UN 10 years ago". Iraq says "we have no WMD's". Iraq has used WMDs on their own people, and now threatens their neighbors. The countries of the world vote that Iraq must produce either the WMDs or evidence of their destruction, or else. Iraq says "what WMD's." We attack rather than wait for them to use their weapons. Turns out they've been moved, destroyed or didn't exist.
So. Here are the questions based on the above:
Where are the WMDs? They clearly existed 10 years ago. Did they get used, destroyed or moved? Those are the only three options. They existed 10 years ago, based on the documentation of the UN. The other option is the the UN was wrong 10 years ago. Even in my total skepticism of the usefulness of the UN, I find it hard to believe that they could blow it THAT bad. Besides, we have the evidence that he has USED them. Therefore, in some capacity, he HAD them
Therefore, since Saddam HAD WMDs, would Saddam use them on the US, given the chance to do so? What does the preponderance of evidence point to? He WOULD use them, either through his own operatives or a link to another possible organization.
He had WMDs. He had the desire to use them. He had the ability to use them. This was a direct threat to our security.
If 9/11 could have been prevented (and it could, if immigration in this country wasn't half-assed), then the powers-that-be should be held responsible (cf, Kennedy's immigration reform of the 60's along with Clinton's policies and Bush's failure to close the borders). 3000 Americans paid the price for this lapse.
IF WMD's are used and kill 10K, 100K, or 1M people, then the government would be even more skewered for the lapse, since THE ENTIRE WORLD knew Saddam had them.
So, to sum up, here are is the short story of what the President AND CONGRESS faced:
1) Saddam had WMDs.
2) He will use them on the US if possible.
3) It is possible to use them on the US.
4) The UN had condemned Iraq and Saddam multiple times, including the final "or else" sanction.
5) It would be our (Prez and Congress) fault if he uses them successfully and we did nothing to prevent.
What decision would YOU make under those circumstances? Al Quaeda/the Taliban was already on the run in Afghanistan, therefore a lesser threat at the time. Would you wait until Saddam had committed an offense? Would you allow Americans to die to convince a lazy America that action is called for? If so, I hope you do not gain a position of leadership.
I am proud that our President and our Congress (both Democrats AND Republicans) took the responsibility of protecting us (the citizens) as a priority over their own approval ratings, or worse, waiting for 100% of the citizens to be behind it (which would take something more drastic than 9-11, which obviously wasn't drastic enough). THAT is leadership.
This is MY opinion in the subject. I don't watch Hannity, and I don't read Coulter. In fact, I listen to Franken and Colmes, in the hopes that I can learn how the other side thinks. One day, I might understand and be able to share their feelings of natural goodwill of the rest of the world. Until then, I prefer to be cautious of those who criticize the U.S. while they do NOT have our best interests in mind.
That's all I got to say about that.
-Stephen
thetrailboss said:
They already can, thanks to our pourous borders... but that's another discussion.
OK, brief history lesson: So the UN states that there are WMDs in Iraq. We go back and say "where are they?" Iraq says "What WMDs"? We say, "the ones you showed the UN 10 years ago". Iraq says "we have no WMD's". Iraq has used WMDs on their own people, and now threatens their neighbors. The countries of the world vote that Iraq must produce either the WMDs or evidence of their destruction, or else. Iraq says "what WMD's." We attack rather than wait for them to use their weapons. Turns out they've been moved, destroyed or didn't exist.
So. Here are the questions based on the above:
Where are the WMDs? They clearly existed 10 years ago. Did they get used, destroyed or moved? Those are the only three options. They existed 10 years ago, based on the documentation of the UN. The other option is the the UN was wrong 10 years ago. Even in my total skepticism of the usefulness of the UN, I find it hard to believe that they could blow it THAT bad. Besides, we have the evidence that he has USED them. Therefore, in some capacity, he HAD them
Therefore, since Saddam HAD WMDs, would Saddam use them on the US, given the chance to do so? What does the preponderance of evidence point to? He WOULD use them, either through his own operatives or a link to another possible organization.
He had WMDs. He had the desire to use them. He had the ability to use them. This was a direct threat to our security.
If 9/11 could have been prevented (and it could, if immigration in this country wasn't half-assed), then the powers-that-be should be held responsible (cf, Kennedy's immigration reform of the 60's along with Clinton's policies and Bush's failure to close the borders). 3000 Americans paid the price for this lapse.
IF WMD's are used and kill 10K, 100K, or 1M people, then the government would be even more skewered for the lapse, since THE ENTIRE WORLD knew Saddam had them.
So, to sum up, here are is the short story of what the President AND CONGRESS faced:
1) Saddam had WMDs.
2) He will use them on the US if possible.
3) It is possible to use them on the US.
4) The UN had condemned Iraq and Saddam multiple times, including the final "or else" sanction.
5) It would be our (Prez and Congress) fault if he uses them successfully and we did nothing to prevent.
What decision would YOU make under those circumstances? Al Quaeda/the Taliban was already on the run in Afghanistan, therefore a lesser threat at the time. Would you wait until Saddam had committed an offense? Would you allow Americans to die to convince a lazy America that action is called for? If so, I hope you do not gain a position of leadership.
I am proud that our President and our Congress (both Democrats AND Republicans) took the responsibility of protecting us (the citizens) as a priority over their own approval ratings, or worse, waiting for 100% of the citizens to be behind it (which would take something more drastic than 9-11, which obviously wasn't drastic enough). THAT is leadership.
This is MY opinion in the subject. I don't watch Hannity, and I don't read Coulter. In fact, I listen to Franken and Colmes, in the hopes that I can learn how the other side thinks. One day, I might understand and be able to share their feelings of natural goodwill of the rest of the world. Until then, I prefer to be cautious of those who criticize the U.S. while they do NOT have our best interests in mind.
That's all I got to say about that.
-Stephen
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
Re: Rivercoil wrote:
Rest assured this Liberal Democrat has nothing but the best interests of the USA in mind...
And thats a lot of the reason I battle against GWB and his cronies every darn day... I try and expose lies and spin and educate people that just want to forward emails and google for their opinions..
I do love this country.. And that's what really bugs me... I'm not being a good American because I'm totally against our current administration..
But the reality of it is... One side doesnt make America great... It's all sides...
Stephen said:
Rest assured this Liberal Democrat has nothing but the best interests of the USA in mind...
And thats a lot of the reason I battle against GWB and his cronies every darn day... I try and expose lies and spin and educate people that just want to forward emails and google for their opinions..
I do love this country.. And that's what really bugs me... I'm not being a good American because I'm totally against our current administration..
But the reality of it is... One side doesnt make America great... It's all sides...
ctenidae
Active member
A few important points that may alter your thinking, Stephen. They may not, but I think they're important.
It's not UN evidence that provides the basis for Saddam having WMD. The US sold Saddam the weapons, the technology, and the training, because he was fighting Iran at the time, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Rumsfeld was a big part of that sale.
Did Saddam still have WMD when we invaded? Apparently not. The UN inspectors had found no trace of them before, and the only real evidence that he had any was that his records were crap and didn't show everyhting had been destroyed.
Would Saddam have used WMD on the US? Doubtful. First, Iraq had no means to deliver them to the US. Second, Saddam didn't have ties to any substantial terrorist networks that could hav/would have done it. Third, if Saddam were going to use them on anyone, it would have been the Israelis, and he wasn't that stupid. Nuts, sadistic, evil, yes, but not stupid.
Based on that, Saddam may not have had WMD, he didn't have any way to use them on the US, and he knew better than to use them anywhere else, so he was not a direct threat to our security. Flimsy case to build a war on.
Besides, WMD isn't the current reason we invaded Iraq, or did you not get that memo?
It's not UN evidence that provides the basis for Saddam having WMD. The US sold Saddam the weapons, the technology, and the training, because he was fighting Iran at the time, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Rumsfeld was a big part of that sale.
Did Saddam still have WMD when we invaded? Apparently not. The UN inspectors had found no trace of them before, and the only real evidence that he had any was that his records were crap and didn't show everyhting had been destroyed.
Would Saddam have used WMD on the US? Doubtful. First, Iraq had no means to deliver them to the US. Second, Saddam didn't have ties to any substantial terrorist networks that could hav/would have done it. Third, if Saddam were going to use them on anyone, it would have been the Israelis, and he wasn't that stupid. Nuts, sadistic, evil, yes, but not stupid.
Based on that, Saddam may not have had WMD, he didn't have any way to use them on the US, and he knew better than to use them anywhere else, so he was not a direct threat to our security. Flimsy case to build a war on.
Besides, WMD isn't the current reason we invaded Iraq, or did you not get that memo?
Stephen
New member
ct,
Here are the list of UN resolutions that Iraq violated:
There is more than the paper trail. Hundreds of Iraqi scientists have reported working on these programs. Perhaps this is the "Left-Brain Conspiracy). We also have evidence of delivery vehicles (ie, medium range balistic missles) that were prohibited by UN resolutions. There have been more than one report of "UN-sealed" bunkers being found empty; bunkers that once held WMD components.
Saddam used them on his own citizens. Saddam stupid? Remember Kuwait? Stupid move there. And the terrorist training camp found in Northern Iraq? Here's a bonus to the movie quote thread: "I always know what happens in my hotel". Saddam is quoted in one breath to be aware of being sly and aware of everything around him and in the next breath too dumb to figure out how to use WMDs in the US or to know that terrorists were training in his country.
At this point, with the thousands of Kurds and Iranians who have died from Iraq's chemical weapons, to say he does not have them is as bad as saying the holocaust didn't happen.
I guess we know the root of Durbin's comparison now.
-Stephen
Here are the list of UN resolutions that Iraq violated:
There is more than the paper trail. Hundreds of Iraqi scientists have reported working on these programs. Perhaps this is the "Left-Brain Conspiracy). We also have evidence of delivery vehicles (ie, medium range balistic missles) that were prohibited by UN resolutions. There have been more than one report of "UN-sealed" bunkers being found empty; bunkers that once held WMD components.
Saddam used them on his own citizens. Saddam stupid? Remember Kuwait? Stupid move there. And the terrorist training camp found in Northern Iraq? Here's a bonus to the movie quote thread: "I always know what happens in my hotel". Saddam is quoted in one breath to be aware of being sly and aware of everything around him and in the next breath too dumb to figure out how to use WMDs in the US or to know that terrorists were training in his country.
At this point, with the thousands of Kurds and Iranians who have died from Iraq's chemical weapons, to say he does not have them is as bad as saying the holocaust didn't happen.
I guess we know the root of Durbin's comparison now.
-Stephen
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
Sadams scientist were "yessing" him...
Here's another interesting read about our Vice President and his horrible guesswork on post Iraq invasion...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001177.html
Here's another interesting read about our Vice President and his horrible guesswork on post Iraq invasion...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001177.html
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
Now - I'm confused... Do you subscribe to the UN? I thought you said it was all messed up...?
If so - why would you care...?
If so - why would you care...?
Stephen said:
Stephen
New member
dmc said:
dmc,
Try not to confuse editorials with facts. Again, another facet of liberalism: "It's not whether it's true or false, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters."
This is why Durbin is still in power and Lott is not.
-Stephen
ctenidae
Active member
I never said Saddam complied with the UN resolutions. His non-compliance is the reason the sanctions were never lifted. However, it's tough to invade a country because they're violating UN resolutions when the UN declines to invade with you.
I also never said he never had them, just that he didn't appear to have them at the time we invaded.
I also never said he didn't associate, to an extent, with terrorists, just that he didn't have connections to terrorist groups that were willing or able to deliver WMD to the US. Terrorist camps in northern Iraq probably made it a little easier to keep an eye on the Kurds, anyway.
Saddam's use of chemical agents in a battlefield scenario, however thin that scenario might have been, hardly compares to the attempted systematic extermination of an entire race. Using that argument is either sensationalist or an attempt to Godwin the thread. Seems to me your comments are closer to Durbin's than mine were.
Saddam's move in Kuwait, while perhaps poorly executed, wasn't exactly stupid. Iraq does have a territorial claim on Kuwait, and needed not only the oil there, but also the sea ports. That doesn't make an invasion okay, but it does provide a reason. Saddam's mistake there was thinking the US wouldn't or couldn't react, and that Saudi Arabia would rather have Iraq in Kuwait than the US in Meca.
Those medium range ballistic missles you mention are commonly known as "SCUDS". You may remember their use during the first Gulf War. You may also recall that the US hasn't found any since invading.
The emptied bunkers you mention have, by and large, only been emptied since the US invasion, and the majority of the remainder stood empty for quite some time before that.
There are still two points that, no matter the uN resolutions or prior WMD use, never get directly answered. What's the story on the pre-war memos, and why has the reasoning for the invasion changed so many times? Explain both of those clearly and effectively, and I might see your side of things better. Until then, I will stand by my opinion that invading Iraq was wrong.
I also never said he never had them, just that he didn't appear to have them at the time we invaded.
I also never said he didn't associate, to an extent, with terrorists, just that he didn't have connections to terrorist groups that were willing or able to deliver WMD to the US. Terrorist camps in northern Iraq probably made it a little easier to keep an eye on the Kurds, anyway.
Saddam's use of chemical agents in a battlefield scenario, however thin that scenario might have been, hardly compares to the attempted systematic extermination of an entire race. Using that argument is either sensationalist or an attempt to Godwin the thread. Seems to me your comments are closer to Durbin's than mine were.
Saddam's move in Kuwait, while perhaps poorly executed, wasn't exactly stupid. Iraq does have a territorial claim on Kuwait, and needed not only the oil there, but also the sea ports. That doesn't make an invasion okay, but it does provide a reason. Saddam's mistake there was thinking the US wouldn't or couldn't react, and that Saudi Arabia would rather have Iraq in Kuwait than the US in Meca.
Those medium range ballistic missles you mention are commonly known as "SCUDS". You may remember their use during the first Gulf War. You may also recall that the US hasn't found any since invading.
The emptied bunkers you mention have, by and large, only been emptied since the US invasion, and the majority of the remainder stood empty for quite some time before that.
There are still two points that, no matter the uN resolutions or prior WMD use, never get directly answered. What's the story on the pre-war memos, and why has the reasoning for the invasion changed so many times? Explain both of those clearly and effectively, and I might see your side of things better. Until then, I will stand by my opinion that invading Iraq was wrong.
ctenidae
Active member
"It's not whether it's true or false, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters."
That's a political concept invented by Nixon.
Durbin's a putz, too, and part of the reason the Democratic party is in such terrible shape, and allowing the Republicans to run rampant.
That's a political concept invented by Nixon.
Durbin's a putz, too, and part of the reason the Democratic party is in such terrible shape, and allowing the Republicans to run rampant.
Stephen
New member
To answer your two questions:
1) I don't know enough about the memos to be able to make a judgement call. However, you are talking about a few pieces of paper taken out of the context of an entire diplomatic process. That small view can be easily skewed to anyone's agenda (either side).
2) Changing reasons: The administration is trying too hard to appease their critics rather than sticking to it's guns about what it knows to be the truth. This has certainly watered down the original reasons.
-Stephen
1) I don't know enough about the memos to be able to make a judgement call. However, you are talking about a few pieces of paper taken out of the context of an entire diplomatic process. That small view can be easily skewed to anyone's agenda (either side).
2) Changing reasons: The administration is trying too hard to appease their critics rather than sticking to it's guns about what it knows to be the truth. This has certainly watered down the original reasons.
-Stephen
ctenidae
Active member
Two memos in which the British clearly indicate they are convinced Bush has already decided to invade, 3 months before the question is even brought before the UN, doesn't strike me as out of context.
What truth on the WMD should Bush be sticking to his guns about? That we haven't found any? That we haven't found any evidence there were any after about 3 years before the invasion? That evidence was massaged to fit the conclusion described in the British memos? Or is the truth in the second reason for invading? Would that truth be that al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq prior to the invasion? Or that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Or is it that Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq? Or that bin Laden is still at large (and now suspected to not be anywhere near Afghanistan)? I'd go on about the current reason du'jour, but I'm not even sure I know what it is.
I'll agree, 100%, that Saddam is a piece of scum that doesn't deserve to breath the same air as a banana slug. I'll also agree that he oppressed the people of Iraq, that he used chemical weapons on his own people, that he was a threat to the stability of the region, and that he generally was not a nice person. I won't agree that that's a reason to invade a country. If it were, then why haven't we planted an American flag in Iran, North Korea, China, and most of Africa?
I don't think Bush is trying to appease his critics. I think he's backpedaling, and I think he and his buddies have been lying through their teeth to the American public about a great many thigns.
What truth on the WMD should Bush be sticking to his guns about? That we haven't found any? That we haven't found any evidence there were any after about 3 years before the invasion? That evidence was massaged to fit the conclusion described in the British memos? Or is the truth in the second reason for invading? Would that truth be that al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq prior to the invasion? Or that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Or is it that Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq? Or that bin Laden is still at large (and now suspected to not be anywhere near Afghanistan)? I'd go on about the current reason du'jour, but I'm not even sure I know what it is.
I'll agree, 100%, that Saddam is a piece of scum that doesn't deserve to breath the same air as a banana slug. I'll also agree that he oppressed the people of Iraq, that he used chemical weapons on his own people, that he was a threat to the stability of the region, and that he generally was not a nice person. I won't agree that that's a reason to invade a country. If it were, then why haven't we planted an American flag in Iran, North Korea, China, and most of Africa?
I don't think Bush is trying to appease his critics. I think he's backpedaling, and I think he and his buddies have been lying through their teeth to the American public about a great many thigns.
Re: Rivercoil wrote:
YES!!!!!
dmc said:
YES!!!!!
Re: Rivercoil wrote:
Ah, there's the patriotism card...a common play by any politcal party when there is disagreement; those who disagree or who seek change are unpatriotic. So predictable!
But I'll agree that what Steve said is wrong...things couldn't get any worse than they are right now! Fire away.
jjmcgo said:
Ah, there's the patriotism card...a common play by any politcal party when there is disagreement; those who disagree or who seek change are unpatriotic. So predictable!
But I'll agree that what Steve said is wrong...things couldn't get any worse than they are right now! Fire away.
ctenidae
Active member
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html
The text of the "Downing Street Memo"
8 months before the invasion.
The text of the "Downing Street Memo"
8 months before the invasion.
Stephen
New member
ctenidae said:
Is C supposed to be Colin Powell?
If so, then we're to believe that the one man in the administration who did NOT want to go to war is accusing the administration of moulding the intelligence around the need for war?
Ok, so Bush is supposed to answer to what? That an opponent of his policy is accusing him of molding the intelligence around the policy?
Colin Powell went from being Uncle Tom to Deep Throat? Again, you hate the person when he supports the Prez and worship him when he goes against. I can't believe his interpretation of the events 100% any more than I can believe Ken Starr's interpretation of Clinton's affairs. Both shaped their statements around THEIR deisred outcomes... Powell did not want to go to war.
-Stephen
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
Stephen said:
Look at the quotes from Cheney...
Pretty much fact.... he DID say that stuff..
Your pigeon-holing is really making me sick....
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
Stephen said:
Colin Powell is a great american...
He told W not to go to war... Bush totally blew off the Powell Doctrine... If he had followed Colin's advise we wouldnt be in this mess...
But sadly he passed into the Bush Whitehouse Politcal Emasculation scene....
Along with other Bush appointees that dissagreed with him...
There's alot of great americans that dissagree with W and the war... His father included..
dmc
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 14,275
- Points
- 0
dmc said:
Forgot to mention... To keep it ski related...
My brother skied with Cheny at Jackson Hole.. He was the Flight Surgeon for the Pentagon for a while and both Cheney and Powell were in his care during Gulf War I..... Flew with the SecDef crew...
