rushmc 23 #26 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you know better than the official White House spokesman what the war was about. Cool. My stapler knows better what this war was about than what's coming out of the white house official statemetns.Good for you.........and your stapler"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #27 October 8, 2004 QuoteYour thoughts, not mine. Read the last half of the report about SD and WMD's. Do you mean the part where he had a desire to restart programs as soon as UN sanctions were lifted? If that's what you're referring to, seems like a pretty good case for the fact that the UN sanctions worked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteYour thoughts, not mine. Read the last half of the report about SD and WMD's. Do you mean the part where he had a desire to restart programs as soon as UN sanctions were lifted? If that's what you're referring to, seems like a pretty good case for the fact that the UN sanctions worked.The same UN on Sadam's bribe list? Cool. I quess we should trust them (the UN)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #29 October 8, 2004 >The Conservatives don't question the war, only the Lib Dems. From a letter to the editor of the Bradford Telegraph: It was perfectly logical for conservative Americans to vote for George W. Bush in 2000. Just as it was right that all Americans rallied to the president during our time of national crisis. However, in spite of the existing atmosphere of permanent crisis, not all conservatives have felt compelled to temper our convictions. Many true conservatives question the legitimacy and the wisdom of the war on Iraq- how it has been managed and what it is now costing us economically, politically and spiritually. We don't agree that getting Saddam was more important than getting Osama. There are conservatives who are still angry about the handcuffing and stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission, and the Bush administration's attempt to prevent its very existence. Some of us do care who really wrote and are profiting from Vice President Cheney's energy and environmental policies, and are unhappy with the drastic changes in direction and protections. Conservative parents share the distress of Republican governors over the unfunded "No Child Left Behind Act", and its affect on our schools and our children. Many of us question the fairness of the Bush tax "relief", and are greatly concerned about the debt we are leaving our children. Conservatives believe in the American Dream, and we know that it can't be available to our children if healthcare is not. Being conservative means believing in traditional values, such as these. Sometimes being conservative means believing change is necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #30 October 8, 2004 >The same UN on Sadam's bribe list? Cool. I quess we should trust them (the UN) Hey, we trust the CEO of a company who recevied millions in oil from Saddam, why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #31 October 8, 2004 "The same UN on Sadam's bribe list?" Its not a 'bribe list' read the fuckin' report, or at least a summary of it. And because one person is named on a list, doesn't mean the entire organisation is corrupt, but we've been through this whole 'bad apples' scenario when we talked about Abu Ghraib. "The ISG points out that at least some of the vouchers - which permitted recipients to purchase varying amounts of oil at a profit - were issued legitimately through the UN's Oil For Food (OFP) programme. Equally, it stresses that receipt of a voucher did not mean it was ever actually cashed in. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722270.stm-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #32 October 8, 2004 I was referring to the UK Conersvative Party as a whole as opposed to the thoughts of any individuals. Their party line is to agree with the need to go to war and their stance in the run up to our election next year is not to question the decision. Of the major players here only the Lib Dems are running their election bid on the argument that the war was the wrong decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #33 October 8, 2004 "Of the major players here only the Lib Dems are running their election bid on the argument that the war was the wrong decision. " Mind you, those of Tony Blair's party that strongly disagreed with the war, actually resigned over it. Stella time, cya.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #34 October 8, 2004 The most sickening part of that whole affair is that the CIA has blanked out the names of all the American's and American companies that appear on the list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #35 October 8, 2004 Yeah, they call it 'secrecy laws' Under the previous poster's (rushmc) definitions, that would make the entire USA corrupt for the actions of a few individuals....Maybe he has something?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #36 October 8, 2004 > "But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that > they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about >and it is about. " I do believe they have solved this particular credibility problem! From a CNN story today: ----------------------- Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh backed Blair's remarks, pointing to evidence that Saddam was diverting money from the U.N. food-for-oil humanitarian program to buy new weapons. "We know Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction. Those who see evidence should go to Halabja and to the mass graves. "Saddam Hussein was evil. Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction." ----------------------- See? Saddam _is_ a WMD program, and they found him! I give them two days before they make this a new plank of their campaign. I can just see a shakeup in the White House spin doctors - "why the hell didn't you guys think of this? What are we paying you for, anyway?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #37 October 8, 2004 haha - ok, they found a weapon. We can all stop arguing now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #38 October 8, 2004 QuoteThe same UN on Sadam's bribe list? Cool. I quess we should trust them (the UN) The sanctions worked. The report stated that quite clearly. It said that Hussein did not have any WMD programs and that one of the main reasons was because of the UN. A separate issue is the oil for food corruption. That had nothing to do with WMD, and could have been fixed by firing a few people, not a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #39 October 8, 2004 "I give them two days before they make this a new plank of their campaign." A couple of Scottish cool ones says the next plan will be to blame the UN for inaction and their ineffective sanctions. Any takers?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 October 8, 2004 Actually, the new tactic seems to be that Hussein was chomping at the bit waiting for sanctions to end to restart his programs. Hopefully, some of the people previously hoodwinked by the crap being spewed will realize that is justification to continue sanctions, not stop sanctions and start a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #41 October 8, 2004 Quote"The same UN on Sadam's bribe list?" Its not a 'bribe list' read the fuckin' report, or at least a summary of it. And because one person is named on a list, doesn't mean the entire organisation is corrupt, but we've been through this whole 'bad apples' scenario when we talked about Abu Ghraib. "The ISG points out that at least some of the vouchers - which permitted recipients to purchase varying amounts of oil at a profit - were issued legitimately through the UN's Oil For Food (OFP) programme. Equally, it stresses that receipt of a voucher did not mean it was ever actually cashed in. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722270.stm One PERSON????? At least 3 countries and top officials from those countries are being listed and Bush and the US are NOT on the list. You can not take only the parts of reports that support your agenda!!!! Open your eyes. We are doing the right thing in Iraq and you can't stand it........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #42 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe same UN on Sadam's bribe list? Cool. I quess we should trust them (the UN) The sanctions worked. The report stated that quite clearly. It said that Hussein did not have any WMD programs and that one of the main reasons was because of the UN. A separate issue is the oil for food corruption. That had nothing to do with WMD, and could have been fixed by firing a few people, not a war. No it is not, you can not seperate these issues if you open your eyes to the big picture"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #43 October 8, 2004 Yes US co's and individuals are on the list - they've just been blanked out by the CIA so you don't know who! It could even include Bush or Kerry! We don't know cos the CIA blanked out the names!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #44 October 8, 2004 Quote A couple of Scottish cool ones says the next plan will be to blame the UN for inaction and their ineffective sanctions. If again all odds Mr. GWB will win, that certainly could be a big issue for him to deal with the rest of the world, at least the UN. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #45 October 8, 2004 QuoteNo it is not, you can not seperate these issues if you open your eyes to the big picture The big picture being what? Are you saying that the oil-for-food program was a direct and imminent threat? What is the big picture? What threat did we face from corruption in the oil-for-food program that in any way, shape, or form justifies war? Please open my eyes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo it is not, you can not seperate these issues if you open your eyes to the big picture The big picture being what? Are you saying that the oil-for-food program was a direct and imminent threat? What is the big picture? What threat did we face from corruption in the oil-for-food program that in any way, shape, or form justifies war? Please open my eyes. Are you serious? You really think they are not related?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #47 October 8, 2004 QuoteYes US co's and individuals are on the list - they've just been blanked out by the CIA so you don't know who! It could even include Bush or Kerry! We don't know cos the CIA blanked out the names!!!!!Where did you get this?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 October 8, 2004 QuoteAre you serious? You really think they are not related? I am completely serious. Tell me the relation between the oil-for-food program and WMD. I really have to see how you can connect these two things when one of the didn't even exist! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #49 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteYes US co's and individuals are on the list - they've just been blanked out by the CIA so you don't know who! It could even include Bush or Kerry! We don't know cos the CIA blanked out the names!!!!!Where did you get this? Maybe you should read the report that your using as your basiss for a connection. QuoteNames of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act, the ISG report notes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #50 October 8, 2004 BBC Radio 4 6 o'clock news last night. (very reliable news program - not at all a tabloid station). Report stated that names of individuals and cos from all other countries were in the report but that the CIA had blanked out the list of names of cos and individuals in the states before the report was published. As for Bush and Kerry being on the list no one knows - that's my point. You may even be on the list, we can't tell as the list is blanked out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
