Recommended Posts
Quote
It says "suspected sites" not confirmed.
Ah, so we got fooled 600 times!. Fool me once shame on you, fool me 600 times shame on me.
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
QuoteQuote
It says "suspected sites" not confirmed.
Ah, so we got fooled 600 times!. Fool me once shame on you, fool me 600 times shame on me.
I don't think that they said they would find something at all sites. They said that it was possible for WMD's to be at any of the sites.
never pull low......unless you are
billvon 3,092
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Bush gets grief everytime he makes a decision and some sort of action occurs.
No, I think it's mainly just that war that killed thousands. Space program? Not too much grief. Diesel emissions laws? Not too much grief. War that kills thousands, based on untrue statements? Grief.
I can only imagine the shitstorm that we'd be hearing from conservatives now if Gore had invaded Iraq and not found any WMD's. (And he would have been there sooner than Bush; he was one of the biggest hawks in Clinton's administration.)
No, I think it's mainly just that war that killed thousands. Space program? Not too much grief. Diesel emissions laws? Not too much grief. War that kills thousands, based on untrue statements? Grief.
I can only imagine the shitstorm that we'd be hearing from conservatives now if Gore had invaded Iraq and not found any WMD's. (And he would have been there sooner than Bush; he was one of the biggest hawks in Clinton's administration.)
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteI don't think that they said they would find something at all sites. They said that it was possible for WMD's to be at any of the sites.
I wonder if they ever thought it possible that the only WMD would pop up in Texas.
Kind of ironic. You invade Iraq because they have WMDs and are such a threat. Then it turns out iraq is not really a threat, doesn't have any easily usable WMDs if any, but some guy in Texas has it.
Quoteif Gore had invaded Iraq and not found any WMD's. (And he would have been there sooner than Bush; he was one of the biggest hawks in Clinton's administration
"Clinton administration"
You can't use the phrase "If ... had
billvon 3,092
>It says "suspected sites" not confirmed.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Rumsfeld, March 30th.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two." Bush, May 29th
I didn't see the word "suspected" in there anywhere.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Rumsfeld, March 30th.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two." Bush, May 29th
I didn't see the word "suspected" in there anywhere.
Quote>It says "suspected sites" not confirmed.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Rumsfeld, March 30th.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two." Bush, May 29th
I didn't see the word "suspected" in there anywhere.
I was responding to a specific remark.
never pull low......unless you are
Quote
I was responding to a specific remark.
And I wasn't quoting, just writing what I thought he said.
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
quade 4
Quote
Bush gets grief everytime he makes a decision and some sort of action occurs. Then, the Monday morning quarterbacks sit back and analyze, mostly for purely political purposes.
Yeah, monday morning quarterbacks like, the U.S. Army's War College.
You'll notice this particular article is from the Voice of America web site, so . . . I'm guessing there's not a lot of pure political purpose behind reporting it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
kallend 2,129
Quote
If you are saying the administration didn't know where the WMDs were just that they existed how do you explain that in a speech to the UN Colin Powell showed photographs of some of the 600 suspected sites containg WMD's as justification for action and in an attempt to get the UN behind the invasion.
It says "suspected sites" not confirmed.
Well, if it were me, I'd want more than suspicion before declaring war on a sovereign nation and committing the young men of my country to warfare and the real risk of violent death.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Well, if it were me, I'd want more than suspicion before declaring war on a sovereign nation and committing the young men of my country to warfare and the real risk of violent death.
It seemed pretty suspicious when he gassed the Kurds.
never pull low......unless you are
billvon 3,092
>It seemed pretty suspicious when he gassed the Kurds.
That was different. When he was gassing the Iranians, he was righteously defending his country, since we liked him back then. When he was gassing the Kurds, he was doing something questionable but probably not that bad, since we'd sold him the helicopters to do it. It's only now that not having any WMD's is suspicious, since we don't like him.
Look for Pakistan's military actions on the borders of Afghanistan to one day be touted as a reason they are so evil, and must be invaded. "What don't you understand about the Pakistanis murdering civilians?" conservatives will ask. Of course, by that time, we'll probably have helped create Hussein II, and he will be available to gas the Pakistanis (with a little help from us, of course.) And the conservatives will cry "No, it's _not_ the same as last time! This is totally, completely different. Hussein II is a devout Muslim, and Hussein I wasn't."
Unless, of course, we learn the lessons of history.
That was different. When he was gassing the Iranians, he was righteously defending his country, since we liked him back then. When he was gassing the Kurds, he was doing something questionable but probably not that bad, since we'd sold him the helicopters to do it. It's only now that not having any WMD's is suspicious, since we don't like him.
Look for Pakistan's military actions on the borders of Afghanistan to one day be touted as a reason they are so evil, and must be invaded. "What don't you understand about the Pakistanis murdering civilians?" conservatives will ask. Of course, by that time, we'll probably have helped create Hussein II, and he will be available to gas the Pakistanis (with a little help from us, of course.) And the conservatives will cry "No, it's _not_ the same as last time! This is totally, completely different. Hussein II is a devout Muslim, and Hussein I wasn't."
Unless, of course, we learn the lessons of history.
Quote>It seemed pretty suspicious when he gassed the Kurds.
That was different. When he was gassing the Iranians, he was righteously defending his country, since we liked him back then. When he was gassing the Kurds, he was doing something questionable but probably not that bad, since we'd sold him the helicopters to do it. It's only now that not having any WMD's is suspicious, since we don't like him.
Look for Pakistan's military actions on the borders of Afghanistan to one day be touted as a reason they are so evil, and must be invaded. "What don't you understand about the Pakistanis murdering civilians?" conservatives will ask. Of course, by that time, we'll probably have helped create Hussein II, and he will be available to gas the Pakistanis (with a little help from us, of course.) And the conservatives will cry "No, it's _not_ the same as last time! This is totally, completely different. Hussein II is a devout Muslim, and Hussein I wasn't."
Unless, of course, we learn the lessons of history.
You are backing your argument up with speculation. I don't see where mistakes of the past will have to be repeated.
never pull low......unless you are
QuoteThe study is accompanied by a disclaimer stating its views are those of Mr. Record, a professor at the U.S. Air Force's War College, and not those of the Army or the Department of Defense.
QuoteYou are backing your argument up with speculation. I don't see where mistakes of the past will have to be repeated.
And we went to war based on speculation...
QuoteQuoteYou are backing your argument up with speculation. I don't see where mistakes of the past will have to be repeated.
And we went to war based on speculation...
We resumed the war because Iraq did not abide by their cease fire agreements.
never pull low......unless you are
Iflyme 0
I say you are in Iraq for two reasons.QuoteBut it is my contention that our presence there, no matter how evil, is necessary to overcome a greater evil and to take down a threat to our nation.
1) So Boy George can tell his Daddy Saddam won't get away this time.
2) So the USA can, in the post-Soviet Union era, establish political and military control in the middle east.
Too bad so many of your sons are dying after being lied to about WMD and threats of terrorism.
kallend 2,129
QuoteQuoteThe study is accompanied by a disclaimer stating its views are those of Mr. Record, a professor at the U.S. Air Force's War College, and not those of the Army or the Department of Defense.
My web site has a disclaimer saying it does not express the views of Illinois Institute of Technology. Standard boilerplate disclaimer in case some nutter wants to sue the college. It's required on all publications.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,129
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou are backing your argument up with speculation. I don't see where mistakes of the past will have to be repeated.
And we went to war based on speculation...
We resumed the war because Iraq did not abide by their cease fire agreements.
Hard to know that, given that GWB didn't give the UN inspectors time to complete their job. In fact, that's pure speculation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,092
>I don't see where mistakes of the past will have to be repeated.
We backed the Contras, the Mujahideen, and Hussein. We've already repeated mistakes of the past. We should stop doing that.
We backed the Contras, the Mujahideen, and Hussein. We've already repeated mistakes of the past. We should stop doing that.
Hard to know that, given that GWB didn't give the UN inspectors time to complete their job. In fact, that's pure speculation.
They were guilty of non-compliance before we sent in the last group of inspectors.
never pull low......unless you are
billvon 3,092
>They were guilty of non-compliance before we sent in the last group of inspectors.
What were they not complying with? The biggest objection I heard before the war is that they wouldn't tell inspectors where their WMD's were; they kept claiming they had none. So obviously they were lying. Now it looks like that wasn't that much of a lie. They were also obstinate about letting inspectors search "private" locations like palaces, about allowing unrestricted spyplane overflights, and about allowing scientists to be interviewed alone. Before we invaded he agreed to allow all that.
What were they not complying with? The biggest objection I heard before the war is that they wouldn't tell inspectors where their WMD's were; they kept claiming they had none. So obviously they were lying. Now it looks like that wasn't that much of a lie. They were also obstinate about letting inspectors search "private" locations like palaces, about allowing unrestricted spyplane overflights, and about allowing scientists to be interviewed alone. Before we invaded he agreed to allow all that.
Before we invaded he agreed to allow all that.
Yeah, but the bombers had already taken off.
never pull low......unless you are
I was opposed to Gulf War I and I got out of the military after it was over because of it. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq before it happend and had it happened under a Gore administration I would still have been opposed to it if the same reasons were used. Frankly if the stated reason had been to remove SH and get us some oil I still would have been opposed. If there was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11 my opinion would be different Gore or Bush in charge. This direct link is why I didn't jump up and down complaining about invading Afghanistan.
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites