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

Last post 11 years ago by SweetHavok. 30 replies replies.
Robert Gates
Taps86 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-03-2013
Posts: 4,691
Leave it to him to talk about how bad Washington is right now and how much better it was under Bush. Yep this ****** is the speaker at my wife's graduation.
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,685
H8TR.
Taps86 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 03-03-2013
Posts: 4,691
I'm going to hate on him for sending my father and family members to die in that ****hole called IRAQ!
ZRX1200 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,685
Then hate congress for Presidential War powers act.

Be realz yo.
teedubbya Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
ZRX1200 wrote:
Then hate congress for Presidential War powers act.

Be realz yo.



Agreed. They gave hin the blank check. He merely added a zero.
rfenst Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,490
ZRX1200 wrote:
Then hate congress for Presidential War powers act.

Be real yo.


What about all the lies prompted by members of the Executive Branch and its decisions how to handle things? Where is all the oil we were going to get to pay towards that war? I don't give a **** if Husein was gassing his people and enemies in war. If it needed to be stopped it was the UN's and world's responsibility, not ours. I happen to think Cheney had more to do with it all than anybody realizes.
ZRX1200 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,685
Best case scenario they stretched the hell outta the truth.

We have no business playing world police. There were wmd's there just not sexy ones that were promised. But that doesn't justify our blood and treasure cost when they posed no DIRECT threat to the US.
Taps86 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 03-03-2013
Posts: 4,691
Kinda like Benghazi!
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,490
ZRX1200 wrote:
Best case scenario they stretched the hell outta the truth.

We have no business playing world police. There were wmd's there just not sexy ones that were promised. But that doesn't justify our blood and treasure cost when they posed no DIRECT threat to the US.


We are in complete agreement here. GTFO of there and Afghanistan by the end of this year no mater what.
frankj1 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,296
ZRX1200 wrote:
Best case scenario they stretched the hell outta the truth.

We have no business playing world police. There were wmd's there just not sexy ones that were promised. But that doesn't justify our blood and treasure cost when they posed no DIRECT threat to the US.

absolutely correct. and like it or not, Clinton left office with them unable to leave their own air space. They were no threat to any other country. What they were left to deal with was their citizens' problem to fix.
HockeyDad Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,219
We need to get out of Afghanistan so we can invade Syria and Iran and save Israel.
Taps86 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-03-2013
Posts: 4,691
HockeyDad wrote:
We need to get out of Afghanistan so we can invade Syria and Iran and save Israel.


Syria is going to happen eventually. I just hope the UN puts boots on the ground and not us. I had a professor who said it best. United States has Israel, China has North Korea, Russia has Syria/Iran.
Gene363 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,892
Taps86 wrote:
Syria is going to happen eventually. I just hope the UN puts boots on the ground and not us. I had a professor who said it best. United States has Israel, China has North Korea, Russia has Syria/Iran.


So, you want to squander the national treasure of our UN allies in Syria as long as we, a UN ally, stay out? Just let Syria have their own civil war.
cacman Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Didn't we learn anything from arming the last rebels & Bin Laden during their civil war?
We should stay out of it. WTF has of any of them (including Israel) done for us?
Taps86 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 03-03-2013
Posts: 4,691
Gene363 wrote:

So, you want to squander the national treasure of our UN allies in Syria as long as we, a UN ally, stay out? Just let Syria have their own civil war.



With all do respect I think the UN is full of cronies. When anything gets done its NATO.
SweetHavok Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 11-28-2012
Posts: 557
rfenst wrote:
What about all the lies prompted by members of the Executive Branch and its decisions how to handle things? Where is all the oil we were going to get to pay towards that war? I don't give a **** if Husein was gassing his people and enemies in war. If it needed to be stopped it was the UN's and world's responsibility, not ours. I happen to think Cheney had more to do with it all than anybody realizes.



For all its good intentions and purposes the UN is a largely inept organization. We had member nations violate the oil for food arrangement Iraq had imposed on them. Our lovely comrades, Russia and France (UN members) bought oil for cheap in clear violation of the oil for food arrangement that Iraq agreed upon as part of its peace treaty. So our "ALLIES in the UN" had no vested interest in going to war again with Iraq. Why screw up a good thing. Buy oil cheaply benefiting their own countries.

Last I checked the US left Iraq on its own accord, and was not driven out, or did I miss them becoming a territory or the 51st state of the U.S. If the U.S. was in it for the oil we would have important billions and billions of gallons of oil from Iraq like there was no tomorrow. But that never happened the amount of oil we imported from Iraq stayed relatively the same from before the war.

On a personal note, I was in Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom 03-04. I myself didn't necessarily agree with all the reasons we went to war but, I think it was something that needed to be done. Many people hate Bush for what they would call a unnecessary war, but I view Bush differently. Bush made the unpopular decision to go to war and even after it was clear he did not win over the American population into why we needed to go to war with Iraq or as to why we stayed there for as long as we did, Bush through it all held firm to his beliefs. Sometimes a leader must do what is unpopular for the greater good. And that is why I still respect him to this day.
rfenst Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,490
SweetHavok wrote:
For all its good intentions and purposes the UN is a largely inept organization. We had member nations violate the oil for food arrangement Iraq had imposed on them. Our lovely comrades, Russia and France (UN members) bought oil for cheap in clear violation of the oil for food arrangement that Iraq agreed upon as part of its peace treaty. So our "ALLIES in the UN" had no vested interest in going to war again with Iraq. Why screw up a good thing. Buy oil cheaply benefiting their own countries.

Last I checked the US left Iraq on its own accord, and was not driven out, or did I miss them becoming a territory or the 51st state of the U.S. If the U.S. was in it for the oil we would have important billions and billions of gallons of oil from Iraq like there was no tomorrow. But that never happened the amount of oil we imported from Iraq stayed relatively the same from before the war.

On a personal note, I was in Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom 03-04. I myself didn't necessarily agree with all the reasons we went to war but, I think it was something that needed to be done. Many people hate Bush for what they would call a unnecessary war, but I view Bush differently. Bush made the unpopular decision to go to war and even after it was clear he did not win over the American population into why we needed to go to war with Iraq or as to why we stayed there for as long as we did, Bush through it all held firm to his beliefs. Sometimes a leader must do what is unpopular for the greater good. And that is why I still respect him to this day.


I appreciate that you have served in Iraq and know that that almost all of our troops are out- but there are still some there I don't feel should have their lives in harm's way.

We went to war based on lies. It has cost us over one trillion dollars financialy. It has cost us lives. We were under no threat. 9/11 had no real Iraqi connection. We were told that the oil would offset the cost of orpay for that war. As you would agree, we got nothing of it. If Iraqis wanted freedom, they need to rise up and take it on their own.

Why do you think we needed to go there?
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,685
True statement about leadership.

Problem is the POTUS need be concerned with the USA's greater good only. Period.

I think GWB was like Jeckle&Hyde with his heart and his actions.
rfenst Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,490
ZRX1200 wrote:
True statement about leadership.

Problem is the POTUS need be concerned with the USA's greater good only. Period.

I think GWB was like Jeckle&Hyde with his heart and his actions.


I don't want to start bashing him and respect the fact that he served as OUR President, but I just think he was unsuited for the job and that others were running the show.
ZRX1200 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,685
What's different now?!

LMAO!
SweetHavok Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-28-2012
Posts: 557
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SweetHavok Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 11-28-2012
Posts: 557
rfenst wrote:
I appreciate that you have served in Iraq and know that that almost all of our troops are out- but there are still some there I don't feel should have their lives in harm's way.

We went to war based on lies. It has cost us over one trillion dollars financialy. It has cost us lives. We were under no threat. 9/11 had no real Iraqi connection. We were told that the oil would offset the cost of orpay for that war. As you would agree, we got nothing of it. If Iraqis wanted freedom, they need to rise up and take it on their own.

Why do you think we needed to go there?



Lies or bad intel?

I would go with bad intel, various intelligence agencies and not just our own came to the same conclusion that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. And Husseins actions in kicking out UN weapons inspectors like, once, twice, three time............ multiple occasions did not help him stay in power.

Unfortunately there was no WMD's as we were led to believe, but there what I call MWD's or Mass Weapons of Destruction. Huge warehouses were found with row, after row, after row, all the way up to the rafters of weapons like AK-47's and 50 cal machine guns.
SweetHavok Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-28-2012
Posts: 557
rfenst wrote:
I don't want to start bashing him and respect the fact that he served as OUR President, but I just think he was unsuited for the job and that others were running the show.



Unsuited?

after WWII what other president had to face the issues on the scale that GWB had to go through. None. GWB made very tough decisions, right or wrong, and stuck to them, if he had wavered or flip flopped, then I would agree with you.
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,490
#21

Even I believed there were weapons of mass destruction- certainly there were in fact some chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear program. I feel I was hood-winked into believing in a war with boots on the ground, which certainly should have been the absolute last resort.

If you substitute "Iran" for Iraq in all that you cited, attacking Iran right now would be appropriate. It supposedly is real close to nuclear missiles and certainly must have the technology for other types of mass weapons just like was alleged about Iraq. And, it has been a major destabilizing threat via Syria and several terrorist organizations. But, by the same token I think you would agree we don't belong attacking (yet), let alone putting boots on the ground,

I know you served proudly and I have tremendous respect for that. But, in hindsight I do not believe we just shouldn't have been their to the extent and length of time we were.
rfenst Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,490
SweetHavok wrote:
Unsuited?

after WWII what other president had to face the issues on the scale that GWB had to go through. None. GWB made very tough decisions, right or wrong, and stuck to them, if he had wavered or flip flopped, then I would agree with you.


Kennedy certainly had to face greater issues, but that is not the real issue here

I think Reagan and Bush senior were suited to be Presidents. I feel Bush II was unsuitable because of who he is and certainly not because he was a Republican.
SweetHavok Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 11-28-2012
Posts: 557
rfenst wrote:
#21

I know you served proudly and I have tremendous respect for that. But, in hindsight I do not believe we just shouldn't have been their to the extent and length of time we were.


We shot ourselves in the foot here, after we invaded we totally dismantled and disbanded the iraqi military. If we had just left Iran would have invaded Iraq. I recall hearing of a Iranian militia invading Iraq as well in the beginning of the war and U.S forces were sent to stop them.
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,490
SweetHavok wrote:
Unsuited?

after WWII what other president had to face the issues on the scale that GWB had to go through. None. GWB made very tough decisions, right or wrong, and stuck to them, if he had wavered or flip flopped, then I would agree with you.


Kennedy certainly had to face greater issues, but that is not the real issue here

I think Reagan and Bush senior were suited to be Presidents. I feel Bush II was unsuitable because of who he is and certainly not because he was a Republican.
SweetHavok Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 11-28-2012
Posts: 557
rfenst wrote:
Kennedy certainly had to face greater issues, but that is not the real issue here

I think Reagan and Bush senior were suited to be Presidents. I feel Bush II was unsuitable because of who he is and certainly not because he was a Republican.



On Kennedy i respectfully disagree with you, but yes he did have crisis of his own , but at least IMO to a lesser extent.


On who he is? sorry you lost me here not sure where you are trying to say here.
ZRX1200 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,685
Nuclear weapons 90 miles south of the USA was less of a threat?

GWB was a bankers wet dream, and NWO approved.

Kennedy posed a threat to the banking cartel and the fed. Look where that got him.
SweetHavok Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 11-28-2012
Posts: 557
I'm well aware of the Cuban missile crisis and the possibility of going to war with the soviet union. But it was a crisis and not a war. Cooler heads prevailed on both sides so war was avoided.

with no sarcasm intended, Applause Applause Applause in what Kennedy did during his presidency

GWB on the other hand had many other issues to include

two separate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

9/11

Katrina
Users browsing this topic
Guest