America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by jackconrad. 113 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Defector lied about WMD's...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
teedubbya Offline
#51 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:29 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
partisan politics splains most of it. my guy is right, yours is wrong.
HockeyDad Offline
#52 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:30 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
frankj1 wrote:
^
believe it or not, I agree with most of this. But this war had nothing to do with Israel. Iraq was not a serious threat. Countries and radical organizations that do not show Israel on their World maps are threats to their existence. How can one negotiate with those who live by a slogan of "from the river to the sea".

If I am correct in inferring a sort of "public relations" issue or world opinion angle for Israel from your words, I believe you misunderstand the mindset of a country under seige. They don't give a crap what the world thinks...they think "survive". Never Again is not a catchy marketing slogan. I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth.

Financial assistance to Israel makes sense for Americe, the payback far outweighs the dollars, many of which do come back. Has the roughly same aid to Eqypt paid off over the decades? Would they fight along side us if push came to shove?



Iraq was not a serious threat but they were funding Palestinian suicide bombers. They were an annoyance that has been eradicated.

The problem with the "never again" mindset is that Israel is no longer fighting for survival although that nation is still very split on that. The days of pushing Israel into the sea are long gone.

I don't see how financial assistance to Israel has paid us back other than as a weapons proving ground and orders to the military industrial complex. Egypt has provided the exact same orders to the military industrial complex and also got us access to the Suez Canal for our navy. Egypt was also part of the first Gulf War coalition and did fight along side us.
DrafterX Offline
#53 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:33 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
I can come up with reasons why it was a good idea to invade and take out Sadam but then I think about what it cost (not talking dollars here) and it's hard.... If nobody got hurt it wouldn't be a big deal would it..??
HockeyDad Offline
#54 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:35 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrafterX wrote:
I can come up with reasons why it was a good idea to invade and take out Sadam but then I think about what it cost (not talking dollars here) and it's hard.... If nobody got hurt it wouldn't be a big deal would it..??



It is easy to defend against an attack. Justifying risk/reward is much more difficult in preemptive wars.

(At least it cost less money than Obama's stimulus package!)
HockeyDad Offline
#55 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:37 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187



FREEDOM FRIES AND FREEDOM TOAST!


You gotta admit, those were good times!
tailgater Offline
#56 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:46 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
re 37

no weapons were found



That's how.


Frank,
I was talking about "knowing" before the initial attack.
HockeyDad Offline
#57 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:50 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Nobody knew for sure. It was a roulette wheel. Sometimes red, sometimes black. When it hits green everybody is F&$ked!
teedubbya Offline
#58 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:51 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Frans Blix knew but he wears frilly underwear.
teedubbya Offline
#59 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:52 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
hans.... my edit key does not work.
HockeyDad Offline
#60 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:57 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
We'll never know who knew and didn't. Will never now which nations influence peddled to make it happen or not. We'll never know which global corporations were directly consulted for their prior approval. We'll never know what deals with countries and corporations were cut to get them involved or to stay uninvolved.

The one thing that is certain is that everything that happens across the geography that is Morocco all the way to India is interconnected. Wars don't just happen. Dolts don't get to just pull the triggers.



We need a new Middle East war. The old ones are played out.
HockeyDad Offline
#61 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:58 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
teedubbya wrote:
Frans Blix knew but he wears frilly underwear.


Didn't he stick his finger in the ****.
HockeyDad Offline
#62 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 5:59 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Apparently that word can't be used. Holland can flood next time.
teedubbya Offline
#63 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:00 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Dolts don't get to just pull the triggers. No sometimes folks with agendas trick the doltlike manchildren who have been put into office beleiving they are smart to act on their own accord to pull the triger. Bush\Obama not much difference.
tailgater Offline
#64 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
cbc812 wrote:
C'mon TG. The whole thing reeked of bull**** from the start. It's not a question of omniscience, partisan politics, idealogy, or anything else. Just basic common sense. The whole venture was "sold", badly, and when the sell job didn't go so well, we got the anti-American B.S. referenced above.

The mere fact that national leaders had to resort to that level of vitriol and insanity to ram this through was evidence enough that their "case" for war didn't hold water.



National leaders use that level of vitriol almost as much as Cbid forum members.
This conversation can begin and end with how the Tea Party has been portrayed by the dems and thier followers.

As for "common sense"??
Not so fast, exlax. As has been stated many times before, even the previous administration felt Saddam had WMDs, using the same intel without a need to twist the facts nor arrive at a preconceived conclusion. And Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the US and the UN for over a decade with those flimsy resolutions that he continuously ignored.
And don't even mention those "inspections". Those were a joke plain and simple.

The reason that Dubya acted and Clinton didn't is simply a matter of timing (pre and post 9/11). America wasn't ready to pre-emptively attack anyone prior to that day.


To be clear, we're not debating the merit of the war as seen from 2011.
I just want to know how you "knew" things that two Presidents, all of Congress, and most of the UN felt were facts.

It wasn't a sell job. Or, if it were, it had been going on for several years before Bush even took office.

teedubbya Offline
#65 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:07 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Bush is the President that invaded Iraq, and the one thing I do give him credit for is holding himself accountable for his own actions.
teedubbya Offline
#66 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:10 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
And it was clearly a sell job. Prior Prez's were not trying to justify an invasion.
tailgater Offline
#67 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:11 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:



no hypocracy involved. they were wiser. he is a dolt. There was no solid evidence. they didn't act. he did... based on BS.



Not even close.
As stated previously, it was simply a matter of timing.
teedubbya Offline
#68 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:11 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
All that aside it matters not. We are there, and the Big O isn't doing us any favors.
HockeyDad Offline
#69 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:11 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Bill Clinton had to sell the no-fly zone. That took a lot of material and money. There had to be a valid threat.
HockeyDad Offline
#70 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:13 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Obama should fund a solar powered high speed rail between Bagdad and Tikrit.
teedubbya Offline
#71 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:13 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
TG there was a group that wanted to invade and were waiting for the right window to open. Everything is a matter of timing. I do not think you can assume any other Pres. would have invaded. That is purely hypothetical. The fact is one did, with no more provokation from Iraq than those done in previous admins.

It was a sell job pure and simple. Not tied directly to 911 or anything else. 911 was used as part of the sell.
teedubbya Offline
#72 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:14 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
continue to sell the no fly zone.

I am a hypocrit though. I was pissed when daddy bush stipped short.
tailgater Offline
#73 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:14 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
And it was clearly a sell job. Prior Prez's were not trying to justify an invasion.


So on one hand you call Bush a "dolt"
And on the other he was able to use a "sell job" to put america to war.

bravo.
That's brilliant.Huh
HockeyDad Offline
#74 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
The game is afoot!



(Reuters) - Brent oil prices surged to near 2-1/2 year highs on Wednesday as fresh tensions between Israel and Iran added to markets already on edge over spreading unrest in the Middle East.

Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said two Iranian warships planned to sail through the Suez canal en route to Syria and called the move a "provocation", sending up prices in morning U.S. trade.
HockeyDad Offline
#75 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:18 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
tailgater wrote:
So on one hand you call Bush a "dolt"
And on the other he was able to use a "sell job" to put america to war.

bravo.
That's brilliant.Huh



I believe that is the same strategy that President Palin will use to invade Taiwan.
teedubbya Offline
#76 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:21 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Actually tg if you read above... I do think he is a dolt and question his decision making process. However I do admire his admins ability to operationalize things (right or wrong agenda aside). He had people that were great at that. Much better than the Clinton or Big O group.
HockeyDad Offline
#77 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:25 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
I suspect Obama thinks foreign affairs are screwing British chicks.
teedubbya Offline
#78 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:25 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
The Bush Admin was able to operationalize more of their ideas than most Admins. I am actually glad the Os are not showing that ability as of yet. When the Bushies came in there was a very quick sea change compared to when the Clintonites or Big Os came in. It was actually pretty amazing.
teedubbya Offline
#79 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:29 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Brittish chicks have bad teeth and are stinky south of the border.
tailgater Offline
#80 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
One other thing that sometimes bothers me when discussing the "bush lied" point of view:

Why would he have lied?

Let's take "revenge for daddy" off the table.
So it must be for Oil? But how much of our oil comes from Iraq right now? And why are oil prices so high? Would the worlds oil reserve and speculative pricing be higher or lower if Saddam were still around? I think it wouldn't matter either way, but I'm willing to listen to reason.
It wasn't to gain a strong hold in the Middle East. Or we could have chosen more wisely. A nation that wasn't strife with century old religious fueds, or bands of tribes that would reject a democracy.

So I'd like to hear WHY we went to war with Iraq, if it's not because he was indeed a threat. WMD or not.
tailgater Offline
#81 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
Brittish chicks have bad teeth and are stinky south of the border.


Wow. I must have been drunk.
I thought she had bad breath and sat on a pack of Chicklets.
Turns out, i must have had her upside down...
teedubbya Offline
#82 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:44 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Can't answer that one. We went to war under false pretenses with one hell of a sell job. There were a group of hawks 9wolfawitz, rummy, cheney, ultimately cornwallace) that wanted that to occur and found a ripe environment to do so. Its basic policy theory.... nothing is new, just a bunch of packages waiting to be thrown through the right window when it opens.

As for oil, daddy etc... I've never understood their reason why. But it was always pretty clear to me it was bogus (and I said so repeatedly in here). It sucked because I voted for him and couldn't point at the other side to blame them.
teedubbya Offline
#83 Posted: Wed, Feb 16 2011, 6:45 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
gotta fly.

gnight
jpotts Offline
#84 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 1:13 AM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
The comments and rantings on here are kinda funny. However, here are a few facts:

1) Curveball wasn't *the* source for the intel on mobile biological weapons labs. There were four different sources, two of whom still remain confidential sources today.

2) Curveball wasn't even a US asset. He was a German asset.

3) Up until Powell's speech, only a single US agent / operative was allowed access to Curveball. His or her reports on the man were, how shall we say, less than "glowing."

4) There had always been grave concerns over the validity of Curveball's information.

5) It had been widely assumed by the US intelligence agencies since about 1995 that small, possibly mobile bio facilities were the trend.

6) There was other documentation indicating that Saddam was actively investigating mobile BW facilites / production units.

7) A bigger source of concern was the Iraqi rebuilding of their castor oil production facilities in 1999 and 2000. The spent bean pulp could be used to produce ricin.

8) As WikiLeaks revelations have pointed out, chemical weapons were discovered in Iraq post-invasion.

This whole thing is either a last, desperate gasp by liberal media types to somehow discredit the toppling of a ruthless dictator who had deep ties with terrorism since the 1970s, or as a means to deflect how much of a whiny little man-b*tch poor little Idi Amin Jr. has become since his coronation.

By the way - on a related topic - I highly recommend that you watch the three-part miniseries called Carlos, which details the career of Carlos the Jackal. It's really rather good, though very long.
jpotts Offline
#85 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 1:22 AM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
And if you want a real, genuine reason why Iraq was so much of a concern, consider the following from the 9/11 report:

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.

and

Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons pointing towards work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4th, the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York unsealed an indictment of Bin Laden charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on the Iraqi- Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-al Qaeda agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”

Clarke, in this case, is Richard Clarke (I believe).

Of course, the teedubbya types out there are only happy when they can blame Winky McFlightsuit with something. if it isn't "rushing" to war, than it isn't "connecting the dots." Just so long as he can blame a Republican for something, he's good...
cbc812 Offline
#86 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 6:26 AM EST
Joined: 01-31-2007
Posts: 4,222
Ladies and gentlemen, that was j "tax refund" potts dropping by for some comic relief.

Give him a big hand, everyone!!!!!!!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#87 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 8:02 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
cbc812 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, that was j "tax refund" potts dropping by for some comic relief.

Give him a big hand, everyone!!!!!!!



Applause ....for pointing out in post 84 key information you want to bury or forget. Lying by omission is a bit strong, so we'll just go with the the whole maybe you "couldn't recall" tapdance.
DrafterX Offline
#88 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
I read something a while back about Sadam's last few days... he told someone he purposly led us to believe he had WMDs... and being the man he was he couldn't back down once the threat of war was there... he had time. we gave him a month or so notice we were coming in... he could have stopped the war..
HockeyDad Offline
#89 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:10 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrafterX wrote:
I read something a while back about Sadam's last few days... he told someone he purposely led us to believe he had WMDs... and being the man he was he couldn't back down once the threat of war was there... he had time. we gave him a month or so notice we were coming in... he could have stopped the war..



I do believe that is entirely correct. Had the truth gotten out about Iraq's weakness, part of the country could have become Iran. Peace through strength.
jackconrad Offline
#90 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:14 AM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
SAdddam was a WMD if you think that's bs ask the Kurds and Kuwaiti's he massacred. WMD's were not the main reason Bush attacked Iraq they were what Colin Powell used used propaganda to get the cry baby Liberals over the hump. Think all those troops in Iraq were there to just fight a war? Look what's happening there now that we no longer have a stabilizing force in the middle East..
HockeyDad Offline
#91 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:19 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
jackconrad wrote:
Look what's happening there now that we no longer have a stabilizing force in the middle East..



What's happening there now? I thought we were still in Iraq?
DrafterX Offline
#92 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:23 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Egypt would be some cool property to have... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#93 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:26 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrafterX wrote:
Egypt would be some cool property to have... Mellow



It is too bad that Obama pulled our troops out of Egypt.
DrafterX Offline
#94 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:28 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
ya... you'd think we would get along with them better... Obama being a muslim and stuff.... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#95 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:29 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
which brings up another question... would Obama have gone into Iraq..?? Huh
HockeyDad Offline
#96 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:38 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrafterX wrote:
which brings up another question... would Obama have gone into Iraq..?? Huh



I don't think so. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia.
jackconrad Offline
#97 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 9:58 AM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
HD the force in Iraq is down from 150,000to about 26,00 with no combat troops. Before , we had enough numbers to dispatch troops in a few hours notice to other countries if needed. This is no longer possible and so Rabble rousers have no worries except a few 2nd rate local forces..

This was the Plan all along by AL-Quaeda, that is to divert us to Afghanistan . This of course opens up the All the countries in the Oil rich regions which if affected could bring us to our Economically challenged knees..
HockeyDad Offline
#98 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 10:18 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Wait a minute....

You wanted Iraq to be some kind of advanced forward base so we could send troops all over the Middle East and invade more nations?

And just how much can I raise your taxes by to pay for this Middle East/World police role?

If your numbers are right, there are still 26,000 US troops too many in Iraq.


Them AlQuaedas must be pretty smart to have put all this over on us.
DrafterX Offline
#99 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 10:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
HockeyDad wrote:


Them AlQuaedas must be pretty smart to have put all this over on us.




I thought Bush put all this over on us..?? Huh
ar15rifle Offline
#100 Posted: Thu, Feb 17 2011, 11:36 AM EST
Joined: 01-26-2009
Posts: 531
If it helps any of yalls arguments Iraq did have at least one chemical weapon. I was there when it was 'found.' Thank god nothing works as intended in this desert.

Aren't these arguments old yet? Why can't we just analyze how it all went down and learn from it without blaming people?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
Back to Top