PhillyKev 0 #26 October 28, 2004 Ok, fine, so the Russians took it to Syria. One more time for those not paying attention. IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF WE DIDN'T ORDER THE UN INSPECTORS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #27 October 28, 2004 QuoteOk, fine, so the Russians took it to Syria. One more time for those not paying attention. IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF WE DIDN'T ORDER THE UN INSPECTORS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. And THE WAR WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE WORLD WITHIN 12 YEARS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #28 October 28, 2004 QuoteOk, fine, so the Russians took it to Syria. And this eliminates any credibility to the claims of John Kerry. Once again... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #29 October 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteOk, fine, so the Russians took it to Syria. One more time for those not paying attention. IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF WE DIDN'T ORDER THE UN INSPECTORS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. And THE WAR WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE WORLD WITHIN 12 YEARS. Blix, Kay and Duelfer all said that he had complied. Saddam even supplied the asked-for report but Bush rejected it. Do you know something that Duelfer doesn't?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #30 October 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteOk, fine, so the Russians took it to Syria. And this eliminates any credibility to the claims of John Kerry. Once again... Curious logic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #31 October 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteOk, fine, so the Russians took it to Syria. And this eliminates any credibility to the claims of John Kerry. Once again... Curious logic. No logic here, my friend... Don't you understand? Even though Bush has been the President through all this crap in the Middle East, let's blame the Democrats, who aren't in power, or the UN weapons inspectors, who were clearly doing their jobs, or better yet, let's blame the countries who didn't support the war in the first place. You know, the ones who saw no substantial evidence that an invasion was necessary. Remember folks, there were many more countries in the world opposing the invasion of Iraq, but there are only 5 Veto countries in the UN, and that's why we hear so much about the French, Russians, and Germans.. Like our own government structure, the UN is set up in such a way that no one country will take the organization in a direction that is not favorable to the international community. A system of checks and balances if you will. Certainly curious Logic around these parts... I've found it easier to have discussions different claims in the news with people who show a little more objectiveness in their stance, and education in their debating technique, than the people in this forum. So here's the obvious problem here, for those who need it spelled out over and over again: When the US ordered the Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq, there was no one monitoring the stock piles of Iraqi weapons. These were not Weapons of Mass Destruction as some of you believe... that has been made clear by the media and the gov't. They were normal munitions used by the Iraqi military, which they were totally entitled to. With no one guarding these stockpiles, they were there for the taking. Which is exactly what happened. they were taken. Literally, tons of weapons were taken, and we (the US) ordered the people who were monitoring them, to leave the country. Now that wasn't too difficult was it? Why is there any question as to where the problem lies... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #32 October 28, 2004 QuoteBlix, Kay and Duelfer all said that he had complied. Saddam even supplied the asked-for report but Bush rejected it. Do you know something that Duelfer doesn't? Obviously not fully. Iraq has not "come to a genuine acceptance" of the United Nations demand for disarmament, according to Hans Blix, head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. Following 60 days of inspections, Blix reported to the United Nations, criticising Iraq for failing to cooperate fully. - January 26, 2003 You know as well as I do that Saddam had been playing a "cat & mouse" game for over a decade. Sure, he delivered a report. Just like others previously. A truck load of garbage. Again, thumbing his nose at the world and you bought into it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #33 October 28, 2004 I get so sick and tired of all the evil in the world being lumped on GWB. Have any of the Airchair Generals considered a senario of what would have happened if John Kerry had been President back in March of 2003? Lets suppose Kerry had allowed the weapons inspector to finish the job as the Liberals are constantly whining about and Hans Blix had come out later that years and announced that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. What would have happened then? The French, Germans, Russians etc. would have demanded that sanctions be lifted. Kerry would not have been able to do anything about it because alone, US Sanctions and boycotts have no influence on a world starved for oil. We all know of course because of the Dueffler report that Saddam wanted to renew his nuclear program and would most likely have started producing chemical and biological weapons within a very short period of time. According to Dueffler, this was a "guiding theme" of Saddams regime. Within a relatively short period of time we would be back to the same situation as we were in 1990. An unsanctioned Iraq persuing WMD's, working on his nuclear program and advancing his missle technology with help from No. Korea, China, France, Russia etc. Additionally, Saddam would be a hero in the Arab World for having stared down the US and caused us to flinch. How would a President Kerry have ever gotten Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries to crack down on terrorism after this? How could we have kept a military presence in the Middle East to deal with the threat of Iran and other countries developing WMD's. Remember all sanctions against Iraq would be gone. Remember also, as it is becoming apparent, that our so called allies were violating sanctions anyway through the Oil for Food Program. So ask yourself:"What would the World look like today if John Kerry had been President and had sanctions against Saddan Hussein had been lifted? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #34 October 28, 2004 >And THE WAR WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF SADDAM HAD >COMPLIED WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE WORLD WITHIN 12 YEARS. He did. Per the last report of the UN inspectors he was not out of compliance with any requirements. We wanted a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #35 October 28, 2004 Quote>And THE WAR WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF SADDAM HAD >COMPLIED WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE WORLD WITHIN 12 YEARS. He did. Per the last report of the UN inspectors he was not out of compliance with any requirements. We wanted a war. Got a link? Blix's quote above is dated the end of January. Pretty late in the game there Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #36 October 28, 2004 QuoteLets suppose Kerry had allowed the weapons inspector to finish the job as the Liberals are constantly whining about and Hans Blix had come out later that years and announced that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. What would have happened then? I've a better idea. Let's suppose that Bush had been a successful businessman and had therefore not bought his way into politics using Grandfather Prescott's ill gotten gains. Then we would not have had to put up with all the lies, deception, broken promises and incompetence that he has exhibited during the past 4 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #37 October 28, 2004 QuoteI've a better idea. Let's suppose that Bush had been a successful businessman and had therefore not bought his way into politics using Grandfather Prescott's ill gotten gains. Then we would not have had to put up with all the lies, deception, broken promises and incompetence that he has exhibited during the past 4 years. Wow...that sounds like an emotional rather than a cognitive answer. Not unexpected, though. That's the general "feeling" among Democrats these days. Above all else, it's just "I hate Bush" and that controls decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #38 October 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteLets suppose Kerry had allowed the weapons inspector to finish the job as the Liberals are constantly whining about and Hans Blix had come out later that years and announced that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. What would have happened then? I've a better idea. Let's suppose that Bush had been a successful businessman and had therefore not bought his way into politics using Grandfather Prescott's ill gotten gains. That could be applied to the Kennedy clan......."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #39 October 28, 2004 QuoteThat could be applied to the Kennedy clan....... Well, that obviously makes it ok that a fair chunk of the Bush family wealth comes from the nazis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #40 October 28, 2004 Quote Whoops! Say what you might about The Washington Times, I was thinking of The Washington Post when I wrote that. Ahhh crap! For a minute I thought you and I were finally going to agree on something big-time. For a minute I thought you might have understood about The Washington Times and it's owner, Sun Yung Moon. Anyway, I wasn't commenting so much on The Washington Times being more credible than FOX News, but rather that it was even less credible and believe me that's saying something. Sun Yung Moon was stated that The Washington Times is His (God's) voice in Washington D.C. and if that's not bias . . . I don't really know what is.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #41 October 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteLets suppose Kerry had allowed the weapons inspector to finish the job as the Liberals are constantly whining about and Hans Blix had come out later that years and announced that Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. What would have happened then? I've a better idea. Let's suppose that Bush had been a successful businessman and had therefore not bought his way into politics using Grandfather Prescott's ill gotten gains. That could be applied to the Kennedy clan....... Is Kennedy running for office, or is that an irrelevance? On the whole I'd prefer bootleggers to Nazis any day.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #42 October 28, 2004 >What’s Kerry got proving that it was there and that it was Bush’s fault? I don't think it was Bush's fault that the explosives went missing (it was the fault of the people whotook them) but there are several sources that claim there _were_ explosives there shortly before and after the war began. One such story is from KSTP News: ---------------------------------- A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons. . . . . During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords. Soldiers who took a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew into bunkers on April 18 said some of the boxes uncovered contained proximity fuses. There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive." In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing. Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base. ------------------------------------ Rather than trying to prove Bush is never wrong (or, on the other hand, that he's never right) it would be nice to see someone, anyone, talking about how to better secure weapons sites such as these in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #43 October 28, 2004 More: abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=205620 By the way, the Russian Special Ops angle seems to have lost ground.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #44 October 28, 2004 QuoteRather than trying to prove Bush is never wrong (or, on the other hand, that he's never right) it would be nice to see someone, anyone, talking about how to better secure weapons sites such as these in the future. That's fine but the Democrats need not use this as a means to insinuate incompetence on bush’s part when it's unreasonable to expect anyone to secure anything before they even get there. I don't think anyone can conclusively prove this thing either way. Kerry, however, is touting his made up version as fact in order to discredit Bush. It's weak. He needs something with a bit more provable basis than this. I think it illustrates his “fly by the seat” and “shoot from the hip” impulsiveness rather than a yearning for the truth. He’s a puppet and a dangerous person, IMO, to be considered for Commander in Chief. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #45 October 28, 2004 >That's fine but the Democrats need not use this as a means to insinuate > incompetence on bush’s part . . . I agree. It doesn't mean he's incompetent, it just means we should have done a better job securing the place - especially since securing WMD's were why we were there to begin with. Best response to this issue is "OK, we lost control of some explosives, we'll know better next time." (And if Bush came out and said that, I'd be mighty impressed with his ability to learn from past experience.) >I think it illustrates his “fly by the seat” and “shoot from the hip” > impulsiveness rather than a yearning for the truth. I agree there too. It's a problem with both candidates. I recall certain claims of WMD's in Iraq, claims that are _still_ being trotted out on occasion to justify a war in the face of some very solid evidence that there are none there. Not indicative of someone 'yearning for the truth' - more indicative of someone who yearns for a 'truth' that can bend to fit initial predictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #46 October 28, 2004 QuoteThat's fine but the Democrats need not use this as a means to insinuate incompetence on bush’s part when it's unreasonable to expect anyone to secure anything before they even get there. Well, this is a lovely pissing match we're in right now... But, you know, if the reason why the UN folks left the bunkers was because they were warned that there was a war coming and they should get out, and if they did, in fact, tell someone official in the US forces that there was this huge honkin' pile of explosives secured by nothing more than a UN seal now, it would seem that should have taken some priority. On the other hand, there were a lot of priorities; the nuclear material that we already knew about was not secured; priceless antiquities were not secured. Only the oil was specifically targeted for securing (besides our troops as much as possible -- and our troops are entirely appropriate to secure). So the discussion is what was most important to secure, and did we pay enough attention to securing important stuff -- i.e. did we, as a military entity, devote enough resources to securing stuff (which our war did expose) which became a target for looting? Had we not gone in, the majority of these things would not have needed the US army to secure them -- I think that's pretty certain. Did we have a responsibility to secure them, having made the decision to go in? Personally, I think so. It's kind of like a beehive on a tree outside a schoolhouse. If the bees don't ever bother anyone, but you know they're there, well, OK, you just avoid it and watch it for signs of pissed-off bees. But if you go knock it down with a baseball bat, you should make sure that all of the children in the schoolhouse are safe, and not just your own. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #47 October 28, 2004 Is it my imagination, or do most folks think that the UN was actually sitting around guarding all of these sites until we told them to get out? mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #48 October 28, 2004 Why is it that when I see posts like Wendy's I think, Elmos world..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #49 October 28, 2004 QuoteWhy is it that when I see posts like Wendy's I think, Elmos world... I don't know. What's Elmo's world? Care to enlighten us? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #50 October 28, 2004 Fairly easy, is a character from my 4 yo daughters muppets. "Tickle me elmo". The theme song goes pretty much like lalalalala....Elmo's world. As in lalaland."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
