kraftdinner
|
posted on June 3, 2004 10:28:02 PM new
Nobody's blaming America, Camodog, they are blaming the Bush administration. He's the one responsible for putting the U.S. in the position it's in and he's making you pay big bucks for his mistakes.
~Anyone But Bush in 2004~
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 3, 2004 11:34:12 PM new
1) We were attacked BEFORE our "imperialism", etc, etc, etc. So the bad bad America theory does not wash too easily. And if the wackos say no it's because we flagrantly drink coke and watch Britney Spears videos, then TOUGH. If you want to bow before illiterate, ignorant, 11th century savages, go ahead while I get ice for my coke.
2) As to WMD, nobody has ever answered my many times asked question. If good ole Saddam had none why didn't he allow the inspector's to go anywhere w/o strings? Would have been awful hard for bad old Bush to invade because he wasn't adhering to the UN mandates if he did as he was told.
3) Will the lefties pick a side and stay there? Endless posts about "it about da oil" on and on. Then there was the whine that it was costing $1 for 30 cents worth of oil and think of how many illegal aliens we could send to grad school with that money. Now I see Kraft and a few others are back to the "it's about the oil" schtick.
|
davebraun
|
posted on June 4, 2004 01:36:27 AM new
Yes, we were attacked by Saudi's not by Iraqi's. I realize they are all the same to you but they were not. Our arrogance united them against us.
And yes, this is about oil, power and political ambition gone awry.
Your vision of manifest destiny is a hundred years too late.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
|
Reamond
|
posted on June 4, 2004 07:22:14 AM new
If good ole Saddam had none why didn't he allow the inspector's to go anywhere w/o strings?
He did allow them to go anywhere within reason.
The inspectors found nothing. Then Bush and Cheney insisted Hussein allow them to inspect his residences based on more bogus "intellegence".
Bush and Cheney took the UN mandates to an absurd extreme trying to smear Iraq as being uncooperative. The evidence shows that Iraq was anything but uncooperative in destroying weapons.
Cheney was the US envoy that delivered the WOMDs to Hussein in the first place.
|
Reamond
|
posted on June 4, 2004 07:33:17 AM new
We were attacked BEFORE our "imperialism"
Which imperialism are you refering to ? The Iranian revolution was due to our imperialism long before 9-11.
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 4, 2004 08:36:48 AM new
Hey Camo- If Bush did not lie - how do you explain Powells comment regarding deliberably incorrect information that was givwn in justifcation for the invasion?
Is Colin Powell now a liberal too?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 08:56:44 AM new
I think the liberals are forgetting the last UN Resolution....you know...the 'last-last chance'. Vote by the UN Security Council was 15-0. Saddam didn't comply. No revising history allowed. It was all in saddams control...he made the final choice.
And fenix - maybe if you read the 'revising history' link I posted in EAG link on Blair you might see how many things are misrepresented by the left leaning reporters.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 4, 2004 09:15:02 AM new
What does that have to do with Powell admitting that informaion that was given was intentionally misleading?
I realize that you have a real issue with the media however my source on that is not "left leaning media" it is Powell and words diretly from his mouth aired on TV and therefore difficult to be misquoted.
But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.
Powell was given bad information, deliberately bad information and then sent out to sell it to the nation and the world.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 09:23:28 AM new
fenix - The reason I brought up my link was because when things are reported and taken out of context they can have a different meaning.  And my link showed that with several statements those on the left have made in print.
------------------
I have tried to repeatedly state that the Bush administration and Powell did not INTENTIONALLY give out untrue information. This administration did not come up with all the intelligence alone ....and as I've stated there was a past history even with the democratic party about saddam and his weapons that was used in making the decision to go to war.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 4, 2004 09:32:02 AM new
This administration did not come up with all the intelligence alone ....
No they didn't. But the BIG difference is that the previous administration did not do something so rash as to rush into war with no advice, no plans, no sense at all as to the future like Bush did. This will go down in history as the most bungled up and messy war ever.
That's why Bush is so dangerous to America and the rest of the world. He acts without thought or reason.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 09:56:33 AM new
The difference as I see it is that one SPOKE of the need to remove the threat saddam presented to the world...passed legislation calling for his removal....dropped bombs from the air on him....and the other one took action and now he's no longer in charge.
Talking doesn't take the threat away. Hand wringing for the 8 years when clinton could have done something...the cost of keeping saddam out of the north and the south...etc...etc. Nothing changed....the threat was still there.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 4, 2004 10:04:02 AM new
A perceived threat was there. Now Saddam is gone and Iraq is partially destroyed and the country is full of terrorists with more coming in all the time. The prison abuse has made even more people angry at America.
This is what happens when you have a president who only thinks about pleasing his Daddy and who wants to act like a big shot to the rest of the world. Well, he blew it big time, now he looks like the fool he truly is and the world sees him as such.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 10:50:56 AM new
LOL kiara - Where you get these beliefs is beyond me. HIS Daddy didn't go after saddam....HIS Daddy didn't think he should have before he did. So I sure don't see how that proves to you he was doing this to please his Daddy. 
--------------------
A perceived threat was there. One the whole would dealth with via the UN.
Now Saddam is gone YES...THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH
and Iraq is partially destroyed
like it was in such GREAT shape under saddam? LOL He had neglected his country and his people for over 25-30 years....living the life of luxury himself.....killing...etc...his own people. You support his actions if you wish. I don't. And things are changing now in Iraq....thanks to President Bush. Don't suppose you read where the new PM of Iraq has thanked our President for liberating their country.
and the country is full of terrorists with more coming in all the time.
Agreed....and I support fighting them there rather than on our own soil. They aren't going to go away....might as well accept that. This is a war on terrorism....called that for a good reason. We're fighting those who would like to destroy our country. And one can choose to either ignore that they're there, or see that they're there and let them set up housekeeping, or fight them and break up their cells.
The prison abuse has made even more people angry at America.
Being angry is a human feeling....very normal. People get over it and most have the ability to put the whole picture into perspective.
But I will wait to see which Arab country you believe has stated saddam should have been allowed to remain in power. I think they're all THRILLED he's no longer in power.
This is what happens when you have a president who only thinks about pleasing his Daddy and who wants to act like a big shot to the rest of the world. Well, he blew it big time, now he looks like the fool he truly is and the world sees him as such.
World opinion does not decide what American does in her own best interests. Iraq will change when the Iraq people are governing themselves. They are FREE now, thanks to President Bush and have an opportunity to take advantage of that freedom. Something MY country has long believed - the world will be a better place when all people are free.
And this President is a man of high moral character, one who believes he has done the right thing by removing saddam...and it's been mentioned that even IF it does cost him his presidency....he felt he was acting in America's best interests.
Unlike kerry who can't make up his mind on voting for or against war....voting for or against funding our troops....voting for or against our intelligence agencies...etc. And who NOW that he's running for president....is more hawkish than Bush is....'we MUST do more than we're doing to fight terrorism'.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 4, 2004 11:07:15 AM new
No, I didn't support the actions of Saddam so don't put words in my mouth, Linda.
Pleasing his Daddy....... you know he never got over when Saddam plotted to kill his Daddy and those were his thoughts while he was running for election that he was going to take out Saddam. So he did it first chance he got, not considering the culture of the Iraqi people or what a mess he would make. It's history now.
One the whole would dealth with via the UN.
And that means what? Are you praying as you ramble on?
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 4, 2004 11:18:38 AM new
Linda - I think what you tend to be ignoring is that all of the scientists that we spoke with regarding the weapons programs stated that progress reports given to Saddam on the programs were either blatant lies or exaggerations aimed at self preservation and that many of the programs and materials that did exist had in fact been destroyed in the 91 bombings.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 4, 2004 11:42:27 AM new
Come on DeSquirrel - are you trying to play devil's advocate? For you, of all people, to think this is NOT about oil is silly. Afghanistan and Iraq had to be dealt with to get an oil line to the Caspian Sea. I googled it and came up with 39,700 entries for you to read.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=bush+oil+caspian+sea&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
|
logansdad
|
posted on June 4, 2004 11:52:27 AM new
Linda:
like it was in such GREAT shape under saddam? LOL He had neglected his country and his people for over 25-30 years....living the life of luxury himself.....killing...etc...his own people.
Don't forget the US supplied weapons to Iraq 20-30 years ago and befriended Iraq with its war against Iran.
If the Iraqi people did not like the state of their country or how they were being treated, they should have revolted against their leader or found a way to defeat Sadaam themselves. It is not the job of the US to be the "policeman" of the world. The Iraqi people could have been "activists with an agenda" - that agenda should have been to over throw Sadaam.
You support his actions if you wish. I don't. And things are changing now in Iraq....thanks to President Bush.
I suppose we should thank Regan for ignoring the problems in Iraq back in the mid 80's:
The same year (1982) the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Not because Saddam Hussein had stopped supporting terrorism, but because getting Iraq off the list would allow the United States to help it in its war against Iran. In 1983, President Reagan sent an envoy to Baghdad to make nice with Saddam Hussein. That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld. All this was happening at the same time reports were reaching the West that Iraq had started using mustard gas on the battlefield. Iranian soldiers were turning up in Tehran hospitals with burns and respiratory problems. They would describe seeing Iraqi planes, usually flying in groups…
The United Nations confirmed Iraq's use of prohibited weapons. The State Department condemned Baghdad but took no punitive action. And later the same year, 1984, President Reagan quietly restored diplomatic ties with Iraq for the first time in nearly two decades. After this, the United States only increased its support for Iraq. Washington gave Baghdad critical battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop movements. The US government provided agricultural credits to Iraq to buy food from the United States. That in turn allowed Iraq to spend the money it saved on weapons. And says Persian Gulf expert Ken Pollack, Washington loosened export controls on weapons technology. To do so, US officials had to turn a blind eye to what was really happening.
http://www.theworld.org/iraq/part3.html
Was Bush trying to liberate Iraq or just correct a problem his predecessors started over years ago?
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
|
logansdad
|
posted on June 4, 2004 11:57:29 AM new
If the war with Iraq is really a war against terrorism, then how can Bush say the war is a result of what happened on 9/11 when this war was being planned before he even took office?
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 4, 2004 12:24:12 PM new
I posted this before DeSquirrel, but thought it might give you something in a nutshell to ponder...
Isn't that strange?
The Russians got into their Vietnam right after we got out of
ours?
We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed
them as freedom fighters against the Russians?
As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban
official in Afghanistan?
There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but
you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.
UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile long
pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.
UNOCAL spent millions of dollars on geological surveys for pipeline
construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support in
allowing the construction to begin.
All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL
in 1998.
1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of
the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina.
John Maresca VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline
until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established.
1999-2000 The Taliban became the most evil people in the world.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American
officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go
ahead by the middle of October.
9/11 WTC disaster.
Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers
came from Afghanistan.
Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a
"secret".
The Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them
some proof. We refused; we bombed.
Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the
terrorists."
We have a new government in Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?
The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL.
Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that
new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL".
The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil?
Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company
before going to Washington.
George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing
in huge oil investments around the world.
Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before going to Washington.
Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condolezza.
Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Halliburton before
becoming VP.
Halliburton gave Cheney a multi-million dollar farewell gift when he left
Halliburton.
Halliburton is in the pipeline construction business.
There is $6 Trillion worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.
The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the
construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -Unocal) announce
agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via
Afghanistan.
"It's the Oil, Stupid!"
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jun 4, 2004 12:39 PM ]
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 4, 2004 12:29:21 PM new
Maybe it's just me but I cannot read that entire piece Krafty. I have tried the feww different times I have read it and after the fifth or sixth "Isn't that strange" I want to reach and slap someone.
It's probably a very informative and interesting ppiece however it is overshadowed by it's annoying factor 
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 4, 2004 12:33:37 PM new
I'm not buying that Fenix. I know you're overworked and overtired plus it's Friday. You're always cranky on Fridays. Isn't that strange?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 4, 2004 12:40:03 PM new
There, I fixed it Fenix.
|
kiara
|
posted on June 4, 2004 02:42:02 PM new
If the war with Iraq is really a war against terrorism, then how can Bush say the war is a result of what happened on 9/11 when this war was being planned before he even took office?
Bush made it seem that it was the result of 9/11 and he did nothing to correct that in peoples' minds, knowing full well that there was no connection. There are many terrorist cells in Iraq now so he's playing that to the hilt, hoping that people will conveniently forget that they weren't there before the war and also hoping that most are too foolish to know any different.
There are still lots of questions about what really happened during 9/11. Why was Bush not showing that much concern when he was in the school and had got news of the first plane going into the towers? The nation was under attack yet he kept reading to the kids and having his picture taken. It's been said that some excuse his actions because he was so thrilled that he could actually "read a book" that it took precedence over everything else but there's more to this, I think.
There is some interesting reading about that day here.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 4, 2004 02:54:13 PM new
LOL! Thanks Krafty
I'm actually not overtired today - after pulling about 40 hours in front of the computer I passed out yesterday afternoon and woke up 12 hours later. that's usually 3 days wortth of sleep for me. I think I am always cranky on Fridays cause I realize that I still have at least two days worth of work to do before I am ready for the next week. Oh yeah, and because I always realize i forgot to ask my suppliers some important question I need to know and it's now Saturday there and I'm screwed for two more days.
I'll be in a better mood tomorrow - 2nd season West Wing marathon. That show cracks me up!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 4, 2004 03:23:10 PM new
Kiara - I remeember that morning and one thing I remember clearly was that no one really had a clue what was going on until that second plane hit. There were even questions as to what kind of plane it was and none of the reports I heard said anything about an airliner. I remember watching Good Morning America who were showing the first tower and saying that they thought it was a private plane when suddenly the second plane came into the screen heading right for the other tower. I remember like it was yesterday the host saying Well that clearly was not an accident.
Unless the words whispered int his ear while he was reading were "A terrorist has just flown an airliner into the WTC I don't blame him for continuing to read to the kids for a few more minutes. If he was just told a plane had done it, planes have flown into skyscrapers before, I remember just a couple days bore 9/11 talking to someone about the two different times it happened to the Empire Staate Building.
I do however blame him for shutting down talks with the Taliban to get Bin Laden, for then attacking our one strong connection to him and then using the entire situation as an excuse to advance his personal agenda to attack Iraq.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 03:33:28 PM new
kiara - The world...via the UN. The UN told saddam what he needed to do. He didn't comply. End of chance.
On the attempted assination of ANY US President should be dealt with in the strongest fashion. It shouldn't matter to Americans if it was his father or not. It was an attempt on the life of a president. Maybe some think it's okay if the President who had an attempt on their life is not in their own political party...but it should make no difference...and should have been seen and dealt with as a declaration of war against the US, imo. ------------------
fenix - 20/20 hindsite really changes things doesn't it? We didn't know what was going on before we invaded....we only had the intelligence we were given by others to do on...and what we and other countries had ourselves. Can't base judgements with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, imo.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 4, 2004 03:46:49 PM new
Fenix, I should have said that Bush continued to read after he got notice that the second plane had attacked. There's lots of conflicting reports about that day and it's not surprising.
Linda in case you forgot, the UN did not support Bush going into Iraq. You and I will probably always disagree on the reasons why Bush declared war and we aren't going to change each other's minds so I'll just leave it at that.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 03:51:34 PM new
Don't forget the US supplied weapons to Iraq 20-30 years ago and befriended Iraq with its war against Iran.
Yes, at that time Iran was a greater threat to us. And if you know your history it happens quit frequently where from one period of time to another our allies change....because the circumstances change. [As they did with saddam]
If the Iraqi people did not like the state of their country or how they were being treated, they should have revolted against their leader or found a way to defeat Sadaam themselves.
Again...history...they did try and were slaughtered.
It is not pthe job of the US to be the "policeman" of the world. Says who? You? Take a look at all the times, under the two different party's that we went into other countries for many different reasons. Look where clinton took our military....look where carter took our military.
[i]I suppose we should thank Regan for ignoring the problems in Iraq back in the mid 80's[/b]
You could if you want. I think him for ending the Cold War....something a lot of the dems think never existed. And if we'd followed their way of thinking....Russia would still be a major threat to our nation. They aren't.
But we don't need to go back to the 80' - we can find 5-6 times when terrorists declared war on American by their actions of bombing our interests and killing our soldiers during the clinton administration. That's why Osama BinLaden said we were paper tigers....because clinton took little action to show them this wasn't going to be allowed.
And also look to current news....look how Lybia has changed their toon.....look at how unwilling Iran was to have UN womd inspectors come in...both were changes that happened as a result of our going into Iraq. China is now re-evaluating their military positions BECAUSE of the action President Bush took in Iraq. Without finding the direct quote from their spokesperson....they said they never believed America would do anything other than threaten to take actions....they didn't think we'd ever really take action. Now that we have...they're paying attention that we might again regarding the issue with Taiwan.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 03:58:29 PM new
If the war with Iraq is really a war against terrorism, then how can Bush say the war is a result of what happened on 9/11 when this war was being planned before he even took office?
You guys are going to have to make up your minds whether this was planned or unplanned. You can't have it both ways.
IF the war is really a war??? come on..you're kidding right? Did you read both bill and hillary and all their national defense peoples statements about the threat saddam was to the world and our country? IF?? oh brother.
Surely you are aware that know terrorists felt free to come and go in Iraq. Surely you've read that saddam was funding the hamas terrorist.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 4, 2004 04:03:46 PM new
knowing full well that there was no connection.
Believing there was a connection....and knowing full well that Iraq had presented a threat for the last 12 years and especially afer 9-11 was not going to sit passively by and take a chance that threat could continue.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
