# OT: Donald Rumsfeld caught fibbing??



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

video from Face the Nation 

ooops...(yes, this isn't the biggest blunder ever, and yes I know other presidents/admins lied..but he basically said "I never said it" and was suggesting they couldn't find proof he did...)


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> ooops...(yes, this isn't the biggest blunder ever, and yes I know other presidents/admins lied..but he basically said "I never said it" and was suggesting they couldn't find proof he did...)


I don't have access to media stuff at work. This stinks.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

This is the political game of "Gotcha!"

For starters, they didn't even let Rumsfield explain the statement. He starts defending himself, and the ad fades out. But it's also clear that he is willing to admit he is wrong if someone can show him where he used the term "immediate threat." I dare say none of us can remember the exact phrasing we used in a statement 6 months or a year ago. 

But all of that is beside the point. Clinton also believed Iraq was a clear and present danger. In 1998 he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act which called for "regime change" to prevent the spread of terrorism. John Kerry got up in the Senate and made a fiery speech about the danger that Iraq posed. Plus, the United Nations was so concerned about Iraq that they were insisting on regular inspections of the whole country.

Painting Rumsfield into a corner on the exact wording of his public statements is lots of fun, I guess. But it ignores the fact that many people (and many other countries) were convinced that Iraq was an immediate threat.


----------



## bigmansworld (Mar 2, 2004)

*ok didnt clintons x secretary of defense*

THE DIShonorable granny {ALBREIGHT}. just yesterday on CNN admitted {they too} were under the suspision of wmd in Iraq. they havent found them becuase the Iraq regime sent them to Syria, while the UN blocked the resolution for all those months. now. who knows what country is or islamic agency has them and sending them out to kill americans? . shell game at its finest and democrats are foolish enough to believe it. KERRY IS TWO FACED whitch face do you trust? i wouldnt trust him farther than i could throw him . he is spineless and is nothing close to a leader.... and he dishonors the medals he won{whitch is very fishy} since he wasnt in for long. by going out protesting the very men he fought whith.and tossing his medals that means you were a hero?. I think not a "coward" he is a talking head. "the best the democrats could put out". what a joke......


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Good post Talkhard and thanks for your analysis. I agree with you but find it hard to use such eloquent dialogue.

I perceive the most IMMEDIATE THREAT to myself and the other taxpaying and conscientious people of this fine nation are the leaders of the Democratic Party. 

They have politicized the single most important issue facing the USA today. That is our national security. I feel THREATENED IMMEDIATELY by this action.

The IMMEDIATE THREAT of the opposition party (Democrats) will stop at no end to discredit President Bush and his administration. This IMMEDIATE THREAT will also attempt to discredit the US accomplishments in the fight on terrorism with no other goal then to win the presidency. 

Personally I don't care if EVERYONE lied about Iraq and the reason we went to war. If they did the shame is that they HAD to lie about it. The UN failed at the end of the first Gulf War when they thought Sadaam would change. The Democratic party through Bill Clinton passed up the chance to do the right thing. So they did the wrong thing. Why didn't we find WMD? Because Bill Clinton went to sleep on his watch. That's why. And only Allah knows who has Iraq's WMD now. 

Even if President Bush went to war for oil he still has more compassion for the Iraqi people than Sadaam's regime ever did. Certainly more than the UN and ALL the people that oppose his efforts. Just because a Texan can get the job done through means you find offensive doesn't make it any less of a job well done.

Thanks President Bush! I support you fully in your reelection bid against our most IMMEDIATE THREAT.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

WHile I am expressing no opinion of the Bush regime, I will say this about the Democratic Pary.

They have damaged their own image more than they have the image of the republican party. To me they have solidified that the Democratic priority is not the United States, but the Democratic party.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "To me they have solidified that the Democratic priority is not the United States, but the Democratic party."


Exactly right. I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush. They're also hoping that the economy hobbles along and unemployment remains a problem. Anything to get elected.

Democrats often seem to care more about other countries (i.e. Cuba, China, the former U.S.S.R., or any socialist state like Sweden) than they do about the U.S. Don't forget, after 9/11 it was the Democrats who started making excuses for the terrorists. I remember Clinton saying that it was important to understand why they hated us so much, as if it were somehow our fault that we were attacked.

Most unbelievable of all (to me) is the fact that Democrats rail about Bush being evil, but never have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein. To them, he was just the poor innocent victim of Bush's aggression, not the guy who killed 1.5 million of his own people.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I think the single biggest threat in America is that young men in backwards parts of the world view us as a world villain. They often feel like they have nothing to lose, and they may attain access to weapons ranging from a box cutter to a hunting rifle to nerve gas to a dirty bomb. They are willing to die for Allah and their regionalist pride. 

They are fueled by hatred, not by Saddam, Al Quaeda, nor the Democratic or Republican Party. They live in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Pakistan and other Middle East nations. 

From everything I've seen and read, in the past year we've done nothing but fuel that hatred. 

Napoleon proved 200 years ago that you can take over countries, improve the lives of millions, and still be increasingly hated. 

We need to take the long view by using economic, political and cultural persuasion to effect change, and always use invasion as the very last resort. 

We need to move toward alternative fuels/better fuel economy to take money away from governements like Saudi Arabia who foster this hatred. 

We need to spend much, much more money on our intelligence agencies to develop human intelligence in countries, and rely much less on the opinions of defectors and the reliability of high-tech gadgets. 

We need to hold countries like Pakistan accountable when they are caught red-handed selling nuclear technology. 

More than anything else, we need more countries on our side. The few leaders who cast their lot with us right now (Spain, Tony Blair) are paying a huge price for it, and we don't even seem to care. 

When we go it alone, it becomes that much easier for young, desperate men to villify us even more. We keep trying to fight a cold war on nations when this is clearly a hot-blooded war on zealotry.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Excellent Post Wanker!

The only issue I have with what you are saying though is how do you end the cycle? The US originally got involved in the ME to prevent the spread of the Soviet Union, then those countires they helped turned on others with new Military Power. So the US again provided passive aid. All of this lead up to Sadaam.

Of course there is the issue of the whole Israel being given back to the Israelites as well.

Question? How do you erradicate the mindset at this point?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Lots o' democrat bashing.

Fascinating story you won't hear on conservative talk radio. After the bombing of the USS Cole, President Clinton proposed a 
comprehensive plan to fight Al Qaeda. But with only a few months before Dubya took office, they didn't want to only 'half-***' the program. They gave the plan to Dubya and the rest is history.

Thanks to the republican's hatred of Bill Clinton and their persecution of him, they ignored a solid plan that could have prevented 9-11 from ever happening. 

Quotes from the Time Magazine article:

"[Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy] Berger says he told [his successor, Bush’s Condoleezza Rice], “I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, [] who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen [] to become the White House’s point man on terrorism. [He was] chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG)[…]. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole […] he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. […] Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. “We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20,” says a former senior Clinton aide. “That wasn’t going to happen.” Now it was up to Rice’s team to consider what Clarke had put together.

Clarke’s proposals called for the “breakup” of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble â€” Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen â€” would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to “eliminate the sanctuary” where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. […] In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”

[…]

An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide â€” to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended â€” just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. Perhaps some of those who had to approve the operation might have been killed, or the money trail to Florida disrupted. We will never know, because we never tried. This is the secret history of that failure."



> *Originally posted by TARGET*
> They have politicized the single most important issue facing the USA today. That is our national security. I feel THREATENED IMMEDIATELY by this action.


Actually, it was the republicans, through their pure hatred of Clinton, who politicized the national security situation. By refusing to act on a solid plan, they put our country at severe risk of attack. 

And BTW, what is it when Dubya shows footage of 9-11 on his POLITICAL ADS? Is that not 'politicizing' our national security? To me, it gets no more political than a political ad.  



> *Originally posted by TALKHARD*
> I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush. They're also hoping that the economy hobbles along and unemployment remains a problem. Anything to get elected.


I find this so absolutely insulting, I can't even believe it. How ****ing dare you suggest that democrats want to see ANYONE lose their life for an election.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: ok didnt clintons x secretary of defense*



> Originally posted by <b>bigmansworld</b>!
> KERRY IS TWO FACED whitch face do you trust? i wouldnt trust him farther than i could throw him . he is spineless and is nothing close to a leader.... and he dishonors the medals he won{whitch is very fishy} since he wasnt in for long. by going out protesting the very men he fought whith.and tossing his medals that means you were a hero?. I think not a "coward" he is a talking head. "the best the democrats could put out". what a joke......


How many Silver Stars did you win in the war? I guarantee it's one fewer than John Kerry.

He also got a Bronze Star and a 3 Purple Hearts.

I guess a lot of spineless guys signed up for 2 tours of duty in Nam?

That interview you're talking about was a joke. The guy couldn't even make a complete sentence. Sean Hannity had to cut his ramblings off because he was looking like a complete idiot. Every other person I've seen talk about John Kerry, has said he was an excellent officer; brave and dedicated.

I guess if he'd "served" in the Texas Air National Guard, you'd be singing John Kerry's praises?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bigmansworld</b>!
> KERRY IS TWO FACED whitch face do you trust? i wouldnt trust him farther than i could throw him . he is spineless and is nothing close to a leader.... and he dishonors the medals he won{whitch is very fishy} since he wasnt in for long. by going out protesting the very men he fought whith.and tossing his medals that means you were a hero?. I think not a "coward" he is a talking head. "the best the democrats could put out". what a joke......


First I'm not a Democrat in the least, but if Kerry's service record (where he volunteered to fight frontline in an unpopular war and was awarded 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Silver Star, 1 Bronze Star and took a well publicised bullet rescuing his guys) was fishy, how do you feel about Bush's National Guard service to dodge conflict all together? If JK is two faced and not a leader, how do you feel about Bush's 3 arrests and 20+ year gap on his resume that he won't answere questions about? In these scary times, he has taken more vacation time off then any President ever. 

John Kerry is not two faced on defending the country IMO. He has consistently voted for increasing military spending, but he disagrees on how the military has been directed to use those funds. One of Bush's top military aides defected to Kerry because of just that... 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/beers.tm/

As far as this clip... I hardly think this is some major smoking gun... but basically he was the one bringing into question the press's attributing a phrase to him and accusing them of smearing him... pretty much he was proven to be wrong, and it's sort of funny to see him swallowing hard when confronted with his own words, but so what? 

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil...


I dare say most Republican leaders secretly eat babies...

This is fun.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I remember Clinton saying that it was important to understand why they hated us so much, as if it were somehow our fault that we were attacked.



or maybe he thinks it's important to understand why they hate us so that we can figure out how to best identify and combat the threat they pose in its earliest stages while ALSO working to bring about changes that give them fewer reasons to hate us in the first place. Trying to understand how the enemy thinks is important in war, not a sign of complicity. The war on terror isn't a war of attrition. Terrorism won't be ended if we simply kill or imprison every known terrorist. We might just be giving new generations a new reason to embrace terrorism, fundamentalism and militance and the cycle will repeat itself. A lot of things need to happen in order to break this cycle. I'm not smart enough to know them all.

I don't claim to know how to work towards the best end, but I haven't supported much that Bush has done other than uprooting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (which I think he did a great job at until he somewhat ignored it to go after Iraq. The pockets of Al Qaeda and Taliban left in that area continue to make me more nervous than Saddam and his not-so-imminent threat did). I think in a lot of ways Bush's other actions have just made things worse, but only time will bear that out and I could be wrong.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> or maybe he thinks it's important to understand why they hate us so that we can figure out how to best identify and combat the threat they pose in its earliest stages while ALSO working to bring about changes that give them fewer reasons to hate us in the first place. Trying to understand how the enemy thinks is important in war, not a sign of complicity. The war on terror isn't a war of attrition. Terrorism won't be ended if we simply kill or imprison every known terrorist. We might just be giving new generations a new reason to embrace terrorism, fundamentalism and militance and the cycle will repeat itself. A lot of things need to happen in order to break this cycle. I'm not smart enough to know them all.
> 
> I don't claim to know how to work towards the best end, but I haven't supported much that Bush has done other than uprooting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (which I think he did a great job at until he somewhat ignored it to go after Iraq. The pockets of Al Qaeda and Taliban left in that area continue to make me more nervous than Saddam and his not-so-imminent threat did). I think in a lot of ways Bush's other actions have just made things worse, but only time will bear that out and I could be wrong.


Right on.

Wanker's post above too...right on.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden.


LINK 

Just take a look. 

Clinton had far more time than a month to do something. 

This circumstance is far bigger than anyone is prepared to deal with. Do any of us really think that any one person or party is to blame? 

Come on!
 

Now...when a President is trying to do something-all anyone can do is criticise him for it? If any of these party people (either side) gave a hoot about America and OUR safety-they'd be trying to help not undermine!

Not to mention many that are barking now, voted to go to Iraq. What's the deal-people can't follow through when the going gets tough?

Also-about the service...let's not forget Bill's little vacation in Canada.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

The biggest internal threat to this country is widespread lockstep thinking.

Think for yourself and think critically.

And while you're at it, read the flag code and the Constitution.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Bush was wande by many advisors including Colon Powell to not get involved in Iraq at that time, due to the potential for political fallout.

Also he was warnde to not flex his muscles in the direction of Syria which he did.

IMO Iraq needed to be dealt with, but htey needed to have full UN support before they moved. 

I still support Bush and his presidency, it has been a rough term from September 11, 2001 on.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Good post Talkhard and thanks for your analysis. I agree with you but find it hard to use such eloquent dialogue.


I found your post to be quite eloquent. 



> I perceive the most IMMEDIATE THREAT to myself and the other taxpaying and conscientious people of this fine nation are the leaders of the Democratic Party.


I disagree. The number one, most immediate threat to the American people is our increasing stupidity and the slow but gradual infestation of the federal government in all aspects of our life.

Both parties have worked LONG and HARD to take away American rights and 911 is just a further example of how they will take ANY opportunity to further this cause.



> They have politicized the single most important issue facing the USA today. That is our national security. I feel THREATENED IMMEDIATELY by this action.


Our national security? Unless you board up all entrances and exits to America, we remain vulnerable. That is a simple fact. 

The only way to keep us safe is to lock out ALL outsiders and remove all rights of the American people.

3,000 people died. I know it is awful, I know it is a travesty ... it's scary! But, the government cannot stop this type of action. Ever. Never. Ever. Never.

I was next door when it happened. Across the river. I watched it through my own eyes. And by god I was petrified. But - not scared enough to reliquish my rights and the rights of citizens across the country.

Bush and his cronies have placed things in affect that should scare you more than any bomb could. 

Don't believe the hype about it not being used, either. 

As it stands, the government can come to your home - without cause - herd you into a cell and tell NO ONE! EVER!

This is Nazi Germany stuff. This is how it started. They slowly take away rights and freedoms. They implement things. All the while you say it can't get worse. But it does. 

Meglomaniacs know no bounds. And most politicians fall under the meglo title. 



> The IMMEDIATE THREAT of the opposition party (Democrats) will stop at no end to discredit President Bush and his administration. This IMMEDIATE THREAT will also attempt to discredit the US accomplishments in the fight on terrorism with no other goal then to win the presidency.


The fight on terrorism? What fight?! 

I am NO democrat. But, let's be real. This war had very little to do with terrorism. If it did, we would be over in Korea.

This is 1984 stuff, but no longer is it in black & white for you to read. It is in full color. We have our "15 Minutes Hate" ... we have our "Faceless Enemy" ... Our government has created a war that has no end. It is the cold war, all over again! 

Sure, I think we are doing "good" deeds. Our boys are over there trying to topple the government we imposed on the country and doing a good job. 

Already we have lost more boys over there then had died during 911. We killed thrice as many young Iraqi men, women and children. 

I'm not condemning the effort. I support my countrymen. I wish them a safe and healthy and speedy return stateside. I condemn the notion behind it.



> Personally I don't care if EVERYONE lied about Iraq and the reason we went to war. If they did the shame is that they HAD to lie about it.


Of course they lied. There were no WMDs. 

Our job is NOT to police the world. That is what got 911 happening in the first place. 

We need to let other countries grow just like we did during our civil war and revolutions. 



> The UN failed at the end of the first Gulf War when they thought Sadaam would change. The Democratic party through Bill Clinton passed up the chance to do the right thing. So they did the wrong thing. Why didn't we find WMD? Because Bill Clinton went to sleep on his watch. That's why. And only Allah knows who has Iraq's WMD now.


Let's not forget that it was Republican leaders that put Saddam and Bin Laden into power. Don't bestow the entirety of the issue on any one party. 

We had better worry more about ex-Russian WMDs then imaginary Iraqi ones.



> Even if President Bush went to war for oil he still has more compassion for the Iraqi people than Sadaam's regime ever did.


But that isn't our job. 

I would rather feed the hungry of our country. I would rather pay less taxes and make solid investments in our countries company's. 



> Thanks President Bush! I support you fully in your reelection bid against our most IMMEDIATE THREAT.


I don't think it matters who is in office. They are puppets. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Exactly right. I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush. They're also hoping that the economy hobbles along and unemployment remains a problem. Anything to get elected.


I wouldn't doubt it. But would the republicans be ANY different?

Nope.



> Democrats often seem to care more about other countries (i.e. Cuba, China, the former U.S.S.R., or any socialist state like Sweden) than they do about the U.S. Don't forget, after 9/11 it was the Democrats who started making excuses for the terrorists. I remember Clinton saying that it was important to understand why they hated us so much, as if it were somehow our fault that we were attacked.


The terrorist excuse, eh? 

Look at it this way - you are an poverty stricken country with no army. You wish to declare war. How do you do it? 

The "terrorists" had a lot of reasons to attack the way they did. Not that I think it is okay or condone it... but it wasn't unprovoked. 

If you push the little ferret into a corner - it's gonna bite you. That's what happened. Repeatedly. 

We, as a nation, refuse to let other nations operate. We put our hand in every pot. 

It is VERY important to know WHY they attacked us. To help prevent the same actions being perpetrated by us again and to understand our enemy. 

You are very short-sighted and one-sided in this. 

Can you honestly say that if you came from that country you would not have animosity towards America? 

Were you ready to attack them after 911? Well, they feel the same way for other transgressions we have perpetrated.



> Most unbelievable of all (to me) is the fact that Democrats rail about Bush being evil, but never have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein. To them, he was just the poor innocent victim of Bush's aggression, not the guy who killed 1.5 million of his own people.


If the government said: 
"We are taking down Saddam because he is a threat to his own people and have killed 1.5MM to date..."
then I would be in support. But they didn't. They veiled it in this "War on Terror" BS to get certain other agendas passed.

Before the end of it all - I figure people with my line of thinking will be in a camp somewhere. 

Play.


----------



## bigmansworld (Mar 2, 2004)

*samantics*

if he would of A instead of B oh come on...... if we sat back and waited another 911 would have happened in another major city. and becuase these blood thirsty islamic fundamentalists hate capitalism and the west "the infidel"...... we will see this stuff no matter the president. "france just elovated its terror threat levell today. werent they opposed to the war. oh but the crazys only attack or plot on the coalition. not even wake up were always a target way before you were born. Islamic history from the turk ottoman empire says thats the case. christians had the conquests "very wrong" the islamists did as well. they still are.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

*Re: samantics*



> Originally posted by <b>bigmansworld</b>!
> if he would of A instead of B oh come on...... if we sat back and waited another 911 would have happened in another major city. and becuase these blood thirsty islamic fundamentalists hate capitalism and the west "the infidel"...... we will see this stuff no matter the president. "france just elovated its terror threat levell today. werent they opposed to the war. oh but the crazys only attack or plot on the coalition. not even wake up were always a target way before you were born. Islamic history from the turk ottoman empire says thats the case. christians had the conquests "very wrong" the islamists did as well. they still are.


I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering what you are getting at.

The "Islamic Fundamentalists" tend toward uneducated people. You can follow the trend of this kind of action and the rise of education in a land. There is a direct correlation.

Heck, even look at the states. As we grew, and our educational system took bigger holds on us, we educated ourselves about our own nature. 

We took a forward step - thinking for yourself. 

If you want to stop the "terror", then education is the only answer. They have to be educated enough to think outside of the box. They have to be educated enough to reject charismatic leaders. They have to be educated enough to think about what the religion means to them.

Most fundamentalists, of all religions, tend toward uneducated.

Play.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Bigmansworld-
Please proofread your posts just a little before hitting that reply button. I'm sure you have some interesting things to discuss, but frankly once I read the first sentence I zip right on to the next poster. It's just too indecipherable. 

Now watch--somebody's going to point out a typo in what i just wrote.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "If you want to stop the "terror", then education is the only answer. They have to be educated enough to think outside of the box. They have to be educated enough to reject charismatic leaders. They have to be educated enough to think about what the religion means to them."


It's hard to "educate" the citizens of another country. And even if it could be done, it would be a very very long process. Islam teaches that unbelievers have to be destroyed, and the U.S. is the biggest baddest "unbeliever" in the world. This idea is deeply ingrained in the Middle East, and you can't change it overnight. In the meantime, we're getting attacked. These fanatics want to wipe us out, and will do whatever they can to accomplish that goal. 

This thing didn't start with 9/11. It started about 30 years ago, and has included the attack on the USS Cole, the U.S. Embassy in Africa, the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first WTC bombing in '93, and so on. It's about time we started fighting back seriously. Our survival depends on it.


----------



## bigmansworld (Mar 2, 2004)

*you cant educate the unwilling*

Even the best teachers "cant" if the people dont care. 
They dont its "sad" My point it wont matter who is our leader. were doomed to being murdered. buy those who hate us. "they do" i hope no one ever looses anyone to terror.

but sadly i dont get a choice. im in a great country. freedom is my life yet slowly the whole system will be gone. no matter who leads us.

were just puppets in a bigger game. BMW


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> It's hard to "educate" the citizens of another country.


Completely agree. It's also hard to implement new governments and overthrow old ones ... but we seem keen on being in that business.



> And even if it could be done, it would be a very very long process. Islam teaches that unbelievers have to be destroyed, and the U.S. is the biggest baddest "unbeliever" in the world.


That is a broad generalization, especially since MOST of them don't practice ISLAM. That is just a particular sect. 

But, once the educational process has begun, people will question this type of thinking. 

If the US wanted to waste my money educating people and setting up new schools ... I'm more for that, then giving money/meds to Africa or bombing a bunch of rocks in Afghanastan. 



> This idea is deeply ingrained in the Middle East, and you can't change it overnight. In the meantime, we're getting attacked. These fanatics want to wipe us out, and will do whatever they can to accomplish that goal.


How often are we attacked? 

Not very. 

We lose more people every week then the entire 911 tragedy to the flu. 

It just seems that we worry about the wrong things.

We don't focus on the fact that we waste more food in a day then it takes to feed the world in a week! 

It is the focus that I have issue with.



> This thing didn't start with 9/11. It started about 30 years ago, and has included the attack on the USS Cole, the U.S. Embassy in Africa, the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first WTC bombing in '93, and so on. It's about time we started fighting back seriously. Our survival depends on it.


USS Cole, Embassy and Marines were all non-civilian targets. I don't hold issue with those attacks.

WTC bombing in 93 .. well, I am not sure how I feel about it. There is a lot of evidence that it wasn't entirely Middle Eastern. 

Play.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Exactly right. I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush.


I find it hard to associate myself with either party; therefore, I am registered as an Independent in California.

However, I find the above statement to be one of the most *despicable* I've ever read on this or any board.

I stopped reading your post at that point. It's not even worth further consideration. :dead:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

i agree Ron.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>I think the single biggest threat in America is that young men in backwards parts of the world view us as a world villain. They often feel like they have nothing to lose, and they may attain access to weapons ranging from a box cutter to a hunting rifle to nerve gas to a dirty bomb. They are willing to die for Allah and their regionalist pride.


Nice post Wanker. I don't know if I am worthy to comment on your thoughts but it's my right as a taxpaying US infidel to try.

It is unfortunate for us that an Islamic majority ruled by people with oil and money view religious law as the easiest way to control their people and keep them repressed. 

It is unfortunate that these oil rich rulers will continue to give guns, cars, bombs and money to the most militant Shi'ite zealots. It is unfortunate that these rulers will continue paying off clerics to create these zealots. It's my opinion these rulers do this for their beliefs and have visions of a world ruled by the law of Islam. Our support of Israel likely has rekindled an ancient fire. We cannot change the past and to abandon Israel now would not make a difference. 

Moderation and compromise are sins in the beliefs of the so called Shi'ite muslims. If we don't bend our knee and accept their god and law we are called unclean and criminal. It's true that these people have redefined Islam by their own rules. Unfortunately that makes their definition no less legitimate if the populace accepts their interpretation. Only a few Shi'ite clerics have denounced the hypocrisy and they have been censured or blown up.

Freedom from a government ruled by religious law is in our bill of rights. The people of the US and most of the western world believe government can transcend religion. We believe that man can rule himself. 

Now..I'm not foolish enough to think that our Judeo-Christian culture is free from religious influence. Many people have been killed or tortured for Judeo-Christians beliefs in the establishment of the western world. What I believe we have accomplished is to offer people more freedom from religious persecution. Most indicative of this are the rights of women and public dispersal of knowledge.

Our enemies will not stop because we try to placate them. The will see an extended olive branch as a lack of resolve on our part and an advantage they can exploit. It is human nature to exploit.



> Napoleon proved 200 years ago that you can take over countries, improve the lives of millions, and still be increasingly hated.


This paragraph tells me you view our actions in Iraq were of conquerer rather than liberator. Do you really compare subjugation by force to US policy in Iraq? Maybe I'm skewed but I can't imagine anyone holding a gun to those Iraqi's heads while they signed the interem constitution they wrote. 



> We need to take the long view by using economic, political and cultural persuasion to effect change, and always use invasion as the very last resort.


At first glance Libya is a case study of this tactic used in success. It's my opinion that Qahdafi fear's Shi'ite aggression as much as anyone. His 97% Sunni Islam nation is vulnerable to Shi'ite clerical influence. It is no act of attrition that turned him towards the west for appeasement. His motive is to retain power. 

Only through isolation and education would you be able to peacefully change the way people think. Try to convince Iran to build secular schools. Think about it. Not in their best interest. Too bad wishing it would happen doesn't make it happen. 

Cultural persuasion is a falacy. You have to have culture to offer and the minds have to be open to acceptance. They don't want our culture and sometimes I don't either.

Of course peaceful means are always ideal but in truth it only delays the inevitable. Check out Haiti. Result is the same in rebellion or intervention. People die. While there are stumbles along the way the US has an excellent record for successful intervention on the behalf of other nations populace and we haven't conquered anyone since Puerto Rico.



> We need to move toward alternative fuels/better fuel economy to take money away from governements like Saudi Arabia who foster this hatred.


I'm with you there. We need to quit dealing with those nations completely. I would like nothing more than to see their water wells worth more than their oil wells.



> More than anything else, we need more countries on our side. The few leaders who cast their lot with us right now (Spain, Tony Blair) are paying a huge price for it, and we don't even seem to care.


The european people seem to have extremely short memories and a lack of resolve. They didn't mind the US hanging out until the wall went down did they? I can't believe the way the Spaniards reacted to the attacks, those people deserve the fate they elected.



> *Originally posted by Talkhard!*
> Exactly right. I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush.


You sure jumped into a hornets nest with that one. 

Personally I don't think they are hoping it would happen but I'd believe there would be innuendo blaming it on Bush if it did happen. Someone would say it and the media would suck it up. Similar to Howard Dean on Spain today.

I also believe that "citizens" organizations like Moveon.org will portray any terrorist attacks anywhere as a failure by the Bush administration throughout the campaign and beyond. I'm not endorsing censure. IMO those people are doing their party more damage than good. I just hope they are too stoned to vote like those people that voted for Buchanan 'by accident' in Florida. 

Go Ralph


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

*two things on this subject I already posted*



> i'm just curious if you, or any grey area folks will acknowledge the reality that certain muslim extremist groups such as Hezbollah, Al-Queda, even the great Ayatollah Khomeni himself, along with our dear old friend Saddam Hussein (thankfully disposed of) have since 1977 onward, declared Jihad (Holy War) on the US and/or declared actual war on the US and furthermore have taken action to prove their intent to wage war against the US, such as:
> 
> -Iranian revolutionaries hold Americans hostage in the Embassy for over a year ('79-81)
> 
> ...





> The Iraqi people are very well educated in general, have high literacy rates, and conform to a much more liberal Muslim cultural standard than say Iran, for example. If ever there was an arab country that would flock to democracy as they slide into modern westernism, it would be Iraq. This is a country where many women don't bother with burkas and wear western fashions. This is also a fairly young country, where idealism can take root. This is also a country that has just suffered through 30 years of the most brutal authoritarian and repressive regimes imaginable.
> 
> 
> Iraq is the perfect country for middle east democracy. That is why the terrorists are fighting so hard to blow it up. I would wager my annual income that the terrorists are funded by money from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran primarily because the current repressive regimes in those countries know their time is almost up, especially if Iraq flourishes under a western system allowing for individual freedom. Iran recently went so far as to banish the liberal political movement from the voting ballot so as to solidify the conservative Islamic stranglehold at the top. That is a desperate power grab, they know that eventually they will be run out of office if they allow the people to choose their government. Saudi Arabia is not far behind. Syria is not far behind. The people in this region, don't you think they want simple freedom and opportunity just like you or me? They do, and to assume that because of our own stereotyping of the typical muslim Arab person in the middle east, that they are so hard headed and set in their religious fanatacism that they don't want freedom and opportunity is to sell them short. They do. Desperately. If they had freedom and opportunity the Al-Queda wouldn't have much of an audience to pitch their virulent ideology to, there would be no listeners. As it is, due to the repressive gov'ts and economic systems at work in the middle east, Al-Queda has lots of potential recruits to hit up. All they have to do is point to the US and say "they're the reason you're a poor helpless muslim with no future".


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> I found your post to be quite eloquent.


Thanks. 



> The number one, most immediate threat to the American people is our increasing stupidity and the slow but gradual infestation of the federal government in all aspects of our life.


Ever hear of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Klamath Basin? You are preaching to the choir. But until someone can offer up a legitimate candidate that can stand up for people like you and I we are screwed. Like it or not. What are you gonna do about it? Pick the greater evil and get after it.



> Our national security? Unless you board up all entrances and exits to America, we remain vulnerable. That is a simple fact.
> 
> The only way to keep us safe is to lock out ALL outsiders and remove all rights of the American people.


Won't get me arguing about immigration. 

That thing about removing the rights of Americans? I don't get that because most people with negative thoughts about Federalism think we would be safer with most of our rights back. Especially the right to bear arms. 




> Bush and his cronies have placed things in affect that should scare you more than any bomb could.
> 
> Don't believe the hype about it not being used, either.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. 

But again. Where is the greater evil? 

In my mind it's the liberal socialists that would give us crap like gay marriage if they could get away with it. Or someone that would let the UN sit around twirling on their thumb while some 2bit dictator shows them his moon.

While I can see your point that the Fed's are putting their nose in where it doesn't belong I cannot believe the crap that goes on in the courtrooms of America. What about victims rights or the rights of any American to rest assured that charges won't be dropped because the kiddy porn was found during a drug search.

 Click here to see how R Kelly gets off

Hard to blame that stuff on the Bush administration but I'm sure someone will, or blame them for not fixing it.



> Already we have lost more boys over there then had died during 911.


I'm not real clear on that?



> We killed thrice as many young Iraqi men, women and children.


Civilians? I guess you will believe who you will to justfy your beliefs. 



> I'm not condemning the effort. I support my countrymen. I wish them a safe and healthy and speedy return stateside. I condemn the notion behind it.


The notion that America did something with resolve when the UN didn't? The notion that an American President did the right thing for a change? 

What exactly are you condemning? Any condemnation of any 'notion behind' the attack is detrimental to the success of the mission. 

Imagine a soldier in Iraq tonight, a Portland TrailBlazer fan from Portland reading your post. How can he interpret that paragraph as supportive? Who are you to 'condemn the notion behind' a belief that he is being asked to risk his life for. Shame on You.



> Of course they lied. There were no WMDs.


THERE WERE WMD'S! There were all along. Hans Blix said so again the other night. He said the Iraqi's showed him an area where they destroyed some WMD's. The UN could not determine how much had been destroyed. Where did you get the idea that Iraq never had WMD's? Even John Kerry knew that.



> We need to let other countries grow just like we did during our civil war and revolutions.


Which revolutionS are those? 

You claim that the Civil War made our country grow in the same post that you complain about the Federal gov't? 

Do you know what the Civil War was about? It was about states rights. The Civil War did more harm to the Constitution than George Bush could ever do. The Civil War destroyed the Federation and made the Republic we have today. Funny how history books leave that side out eh?



> Let's not forget that it was Republican leaders that put Saddam and Bin Laden into power. Don't bestow the entirety of the issue on any one party.


Can't change the past but so far only one party's candidate has had the resolve to do the right thing. 



> We had better worry more about ex-Russian WMDs then imaginary Iraqi ones.


Besides the unimaginary Iraqi WMD's you are absolutely correct. I find the stockpiles and former manufacturing facilities of the former Soviet Union's terrifying. It's only a matter of time.



> I would rather feed the hungry of our country. I would rather pay less taxes and make solid investments in our countries company's.


Nicely said. I'd rather the hungry be able to feed themselves. No one wants to pay taxes and our manufacturing has to regain ground lost to overseas companies. The Bush tax cut made it easier for industry to justify staying in America. 



> I don't think it matters who is in office.


Don't kid yourself. Keep an eye out for the one that will change his story to get elected. I think you will find the other one sticks to his guns even if he was wrong. Besides you're a Texan you sure as hell don't want some Kennedy Liberal from Massachusets in there.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> What exactly are you condemning? Any condemnation of any 'notion behind' the attack is detrimental to the success of the mission.
> 
> Imagine a soldier in Iraq tonight, a Portland TrailBlazer fan from Portland reading your post. How can he interpret that paragraph as supportive? Who are you to 'condemn the notion behind' a belief that he is being asked to risk his life for. Shame on You.


The soldier IS fighting so we can condemn the notion behind what he is doing. That is the underpinnings of the US, that we have the right to express our opinion and DISAGREEMENT with the direction our country is taking.

I have a good friends in Iraq right now and he knows some people don't agree with the politics of why he is doing what he is doing and believe me that doesn't bother him. You should still show your support for the PEOPLE there even if you don't support the IDEA of why they are there.

Would you prefer we can't question our country?



> THERE WERE WMD'S! There were all along. Hans Blix said so again the other night. He said the Iraqi's showed him an area where they destroyed some WMD's. The UN could not determine how much had been destroyed. Where did you get the idea that Iraq never had WMD's? Even John Kerry knew that.


According to the the head weapons inspector David Kay "We got it wrong". So where did you get the idea Iraq had WMD immediately before the war? Our administration said they did, now they are saying Iraq possibly had the "capability".

Hans Blix never said they had WMD immediately before the war. I watched the interview the other night. Don't flat out lie it hurts your arguments. Show me the quote where Blix says there were WMD when he was doing the searches. He specificlly said they did not find any and with an objective view he had no concrete reason to believe they were there. He did say he had a suspicion they were there but he had no evidence to support this.



> Don't kid yourself. Keep an eye out for the one that will change his story to get elected. I think you will find the other one sticks to his guns even if he was wrong. Besides you're a Texan you sure as hell don't want some Kennedy Liberal from Massachusets in there.


How has Kerry changed his story to get elected? Sure he voted different ways on bills but every senator has. This doesn't mean your a flip floper. Kerry has voted on over 10,000 bills each with seperate ammendments and clauses that he might object too. You cant find a legislator who has voted on 10,000 bills without voting every which way if you only look at a couple votes.

Kerry did give the president autority for the war in Iraq. He hasn't said we should pull out of Iraq, all he has said is he doesn't approve of the implementation the Bush administration has taken. Many people are critical of Bush's unilateral approach including republicans. Newt Gingrich said it was the presidents international blunders that forced us into our position.

And why would you want a president who "sticks to his guns even if he was wrong". I want a president who acknowledges his mistakes and tries to avoid similar ones in the future. Kennedy said it was his fault when we screwed up the bay of pigs, mostly from bad intelligence. Kennedy said the buck stops here and people forgave him. 

Then Kennedy drastically changed the way his administration made decisions so he has more opposing views brought up to him. Kennedy saw that the problem wasn't the intelligence, it was the way it was presented to him. People working under him previously found it very hard to present facts and analysis that would opposed the leaders current opinion. Thus Kennedy was given skewed evidence about the bay of pigs. It was the management, analysis, and presentation of the intelligence, not the intelligence itself that was to blame.

Funny how history repeats itself.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "How has Kerry changed his story to get elected? Sure he voted different ways on bills but every senator has. This doesn't mean your a flip floper."


You told Target that lying weakened his case, but now you're whitewashing Kerry's voting record. The guy has flip-flopped like it's going out of style. I'd say you're hurting your argument by trying to justify it. 



> "Many people are critical of Bush's unilateral approach . . . "


This is one of the biggest lies told by the Left. They've repeated it so many times that most people believe it. Try looking up the word "unilateral." It means "Done or undertaken by one person or party." The U.S. had over 40 countries on its side when it liberated Iraq. That's hardly unilateral, by any objective standard. Even if only Britain had been on our side, it still would not have been "unilateral."


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Target--

it's nice to have a conservative poster on here who can cobble together an interesting argument. it's always disappointed me on this board that in most cases the more left leaning posters here are the only ones who can put together reasonable discussions without name calling or typos. 

however, even you engage in name calling in at least one instance. why do you list gay marriage as "liberal socialist crap"? several countries around the world alllow some form of civil union or marriage among gays. are they all liberal socialist crappy countries? I happen to think they are just recognizing that it sucks not to have the same rights as other just because you love someone who is your own gender. You say, "What I believe we have accomplished is to offer people more freedom from religious persecution. Most indicative of this are the rights of women and public dispersal of knowledge." .....but not the right to marry whom we want? 

I think we can effect positive change without invasion. no better example can be found than in Iraq. Clinton's administration destroyed far more WMD's in Iraq through economic and political pressure, and the occasional and selective use of force, than Bush Jr can ever hope toe. 

conservatives like to cite Libya's turnaround on their weapons program as a direct result of invasion of Iraq. however, how do we know that the immense economic pressures we've put on him for years haven't finally had their effect? 

we also have the mose pervasive culture in the world on our side. more teenagers in Iran than ever are wearing blue jeans and listening to Madonna. 

when I've traveled through Europe and Central America, I hear different variations of the same thing over and over: "We love Americans, but man do we hate their government."


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Exactly right. I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush. They're also hoping that the economy hobbles along and unemployment remains a problem. Anything to get elected.


This is clearly wrong. Another attack would benefit the President immensely, enough so that one has to wonder with an Administration so hell bent on being re-elected, would they let a less-than-catastrophic attack come to fruition if the election outcome was looking unfavorable? 

This is not Spain and the reaction in this country to an attack would be exactly opposite of that in Spain. We would rally around our President.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

as for my comparison of Napoleon to our recent invasion, here's a great opinion piece on what I'm referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/opinion/17BURU.html

from the article:


> ...History shows that the forceful imposition of even decent ideas in the claim of universalism tends to backfire — creating not converts but enemies who will do anything to defend their blood and soil.
> 
> Such was the response two centuries ago of the German-speaking areas of Europe when Napoleon's armies invaded them under the banner of universal freedom, equality and brotherhood. Napoleon was a despot and his Grande Armée could be brutal, to be sure, but his reforms were mostly beneficial. Religious freedom was established, government efficiency improved, and the Napoleonic legal code has served continental Europeans well for two centuries.
> 
> Yet France's armed intervention was deeply resented. Some nativist reactions were relatively benign: romantic poetry celebrating the native soul, or a taste for folkloric roots. But in other cases the native soul, especially in Germany, turned sour and became anti-liberal, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-Semitic. Some 19th-century nativists claimed that Napoleon was a Jew. This was not just because he liberated the Jews from their ghettoes and declared that France would be their homeland, but also because universal ideals, promising equality for all, have often been associated by nativists with rootless cosmopolitanism, which in their eyes is synonymous with Jewishness.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Clinton's administration destroyed far more WMD's in Iraq through economic and political pressure, and the occasional and selective use of force, than Bush Jr can ever hope toe."


Hmm. Where do I start? 

First, Clinton did not destroy ANY weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Please show me where any political pressure brought to bear by his administration resulted in Saddam destroying WMD. The fact is, Clinton was a pansy about Saddam. He had 8 years to do something about Iraq, and did not act. 

Some in this country have argued that our economic sanctions on Iraq led to the deaths of thousands of impoverished and malnourished Iraqi children. That was part of the Clinton legacy, too, and it stopped when George Bush liberated Iraq. 

Clinton used "occasional and selective force" against Iraq? What a joke. Clinton hated the military, and usually used it only when it suited his political purposes. For instance, he fired off a few missiles in the middle of his impeachment to distract everybody from Monica Lewinsky and make himself look more "presidential." Brilliant.

Finally, before you criticize conservative posters for their typos, you might want to get your own house in order. You don't even know how to capitalize the first word in a sentence. And what the heck is "mose pervasive culture"? You also added an "e" to the word "to," which spells "toe." Reminds me of Dan Quayle adding an "e" to the word "potato."


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Another attack would benefit the President immensely, enough so that one has to wonder with an Administration so hell bent on being re-elected, would they let a less-than-catastrophic attack come to fruition if the election outcome was looking unfavorable?
> 
> This is not Spain and the reaction in this country to an attack would be exactly opposite of that in Spain. We would rally around our President."


We might rally around our president right after an attack, but by the time the election rolled around you can be sure Bush would be hurt by it. The Democrats would demonize him for spending too time and money on foreign "invasions," and not enough time making sure that we are safe here at home.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "conservatives like to cite Libya's turnaround on their weapons program as a direct result of invasion of Iraq. however, how do we know that the immense economic pressures we've put on him for years haven't finally had their effect?"


Uh, huh. I'm sure it was just pure coincidence that Libya finally caved in right after our impressive military campaign in Iraq.



> "when I've traveled through Europe and Central America, I hear different variations of the same thing over and over: "We love Americans, but man do we hate their government."


Funny, I was in Europe last September and I didn't hear anything like that. In fact, most Europeans I spoke with with were sympathetic about our battle with terrorism, and expressed great admiration for the country.

Not that I care what they think, however. Most of them are socialist weenies who crave the cradle-to-grave security of a welfare state. The best European stock came to America, because they recognized the freedoms and opportunites that we have here. The ones who stayed behind are insansely jealous of our success, and resent living in our shadow.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> We might rally around our president right after an attack...


Gooooooo George! 

http://www.celebrity-pics.net/dp/2-22.htm

STOMP


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Draco</b>!
> 
> The soldier IS fighting so we can condemn the notion behind what he is doing. That is the underpinnings of the US, that we have the right to express our opinion and DISAGREEMENT with the direction our country is taking.
> 
> I have a good friends in Iraq right now and he knows some people don't agree with the politics of why he is doing what he is doing and believe me that doesn't bother him. You should still show your support for the PEOPLE there even if you don't support the IDEA of why they are there.


_In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)_

Your own guy even said it. But then again:

_But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)_

I guess what John Kerry says to get votes is of no significance. 



> Would you prefer we can't question our country?


For the sake of our troops in danger. 

Yes. 

I will continue to insist that people who speak out in opposition to why we are in Iraq are in truth playing into the hands of our enemy. Your words can be used to reenforce the belief that we can be divided again. Just like we were in Vietnam. If you really cared about your 'friend' in Iraq you wouldn't feed the fire that powers his foe.




> According to the the head weapons inspector David Kay "We got it wrong". So where did you get the idea Iraq had WMD immediately before the war? Our administration said they did, now they are saying Iraq possibly had the "capability".
> 
> Hans Blix never said they had WMD immediately before the war. I watched the interview the other night. Don't flat out lie it hurts your arguments. Show me the quote where Blix says there were WMD when he was doing the searches. He specificlly said they did not find any and with an objective view he had no concrete reason to believe they were there. He did say he had a suspicion they were there but he had no evidence to support this.


*I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. 

Hans Blix..January 27, 2003*

Maybe I'm reading that wrong. Or maybe powdered Anthrax just evaporates.


----------



## CrookedJ (May 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Target--
> 
> when I've traveled through Europe and Central America, I hear different variations of the same thing over and over: "We love Americans, but man do we hate their government."


I know a lot of you might not understand why this is. I have travelled in the US quite a bit, and talk with you guys on here, I enjoy virtually every American I've ever met. The government is another story - And you have to realize that when most people are being "anti-American" they are really anti- US Governemnt , as they have never really met americans.

Even in Canada, the US govenment is contantly interferring in our own political debates. IE the US Ambassaor has a press conference to speak against law and policy that our govenrment is pursuing. The Ambassador meets with conservative business leader and trys to scare them with threats such as " IF Canada decriminalizes marijuana, we may have to search every truck entering the USA, and we don't want to close the border down, and we don't to hurt enterprise . . ."

Fails to mention that the State of New York decriminalized pot possession years ago, yet we don't need to search every truck coming from there.

He will criticize us for not spending enough on the military, or for legalizing gay marriage. 

You can imgine the reponse if other countries started holding Washington press conferences to say "The Canadian government doesn't support the Medicare act, and urges you to reconsider your policy"
You would either laugh, or say "**** Off!" its our country you don't get a say. 

Other countries start to resent you when you have an opinion on virtually every bill that we are debating, some things are OK to discuss with other coutries - such as trade, and foreign policy, but not domestic issues that really shouldn't be any of your concern.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by *Target*!
> THERE WERE WMD'S! There were all along. Hans Blix said so again the other night. He said the Iraqi's showed him an area where they destroyed some WMD's. The UN could not determine how much had been destroyed. Where did you get the idea that Iraq never had WMD's? Even John Kerry knew that.


They were destroyed 10 years ago. Not much justification for our current conflict.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-blix-iraq_x.htm

BTW, I'd still love to hear how Talkhard can justify this comment:

"I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush."

That's disgusting.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Thanks.


You are very welcome. It is rare that you find someone that posts both intelligently and politely. 

This board is chock-full-o-em ... and it's a great place to voice opinion. I've never been involved in debates, such as these, where people don't sling mud and insult. It doesn't happen here.



> Ever hear of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Klamath Basin?


Not entirely up to snuff on it. Isn't that the government "illegal" entity that is taking the area between Cali and Oregon. 

They are basically "reclaiming" it and using it how they will - but are killing the wildlife?



> You are preaching to the choir. But until someone can offer up a legitimate candidate that can stand up for people like you and I we are screwed. Like it or not. What are you gonna do about it? Pick the greater evil and get after it.


There are candidates ALL THE TIME, but the media won't give them coverage. They poke fun at them. They insult them. They aren't invited to debates. It's ridiculous. 

American is NOT a two-party system. 

People get stuck on conservative/liberal ... democrat/republican ... and miss the boat entirely.

We need to take a step back and realize they are ALL doing the dog out there. And our lives will suffer.



> Won't get me arguing about immigration.


I am an immigrant. I am not for stopping immigration. I am for putting limits, restrictions and standards on it. 



> That thing about removing the rights of Americans? I don't get that because most people with negative thoughts about Federalism think we would be safer with most of our rights back. Especially the right to bear arms.


We WILL be safer with our rights back. Because the long term issue will be OUR OWN government. 

If a government gains too much power/authority it will USE the people it is meant to serve! 

Which is why the constitution was made like it was. To prevent the power from being centralized in the government.

That goes for the "right to bear arms". I worry more about my federal government then I do any foreign invation. 

Some good quotes by our forefathers on the subject are:
<b>Thomas Jefferson</b>: "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." 

<b>Thomas Jefferson</b>: "Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!" 

<b>Ben Franklin</b>: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." 

I can't remember the quote and can't seem to find it - but basically it intimates that America never need fear foreign invasion, but rather the government that runs it. 

A good read is: <i>"Ben Franklin's Web Site: Privacy and Curiosity from Plymouth Rock to the Internet"</i>



> But again. Where is the greater evil?


You can play that game until we are in camps and our rights are all gone. 

We should take a lesson from our founding fathers. We need to take a stand against the motions the government is going through. 

The federal is getting TOO big.



> In my mind it's the liberal socialists that would give us crap like gay marriage if they could get away with it. Or someone that would let the UN sit around twirling on their thumb while some 2bit dictator shows them his moon.


I am a social liberal, and I don't think that homosexual marriage is crap. I don't think it is a political issue. The federal government has no business mucking in the lives of citizens. 

There needs to be a contractual document that ALL couples must sign .. this is the coming together of TWO (or more) entities into ONE. That is the only thing the government needs be concerned with.

Churches can deal with marriage. 



> While I can see your point that the Fed's are putting their nose in where it doesn't belong I cannot believe the crap that goes on in the courtrooms of America. What about victims rights or the rights of any American to rest assured that charges won't be dropped because the kiddy porn was found during a drug search.


I agree. Some things have run amok. But, most of these rules are there for our protection.

The problem lies in juries. A jury of stupid people can make stupid decisions. Punish the wrong thing. They are sympathetic to a sad story. 



> Hard to blame that stuff on the Bush administration but I'm sure someone will, or blame them for not fixing it.


I think George is an idiot. But he inherited crud. Crud in = crud out, unless you really want to slap some heads. 

What we need is a president with little, to no, allegiances to a party. They owe NO ONE any favors. That man/woman would do wonders for our country.



> I'm not real clear on that?


We have lost more soldiers in the war then we lost civilians in the incident.



> Civilians? I guess you will believe who you will to justfy your beliefs.


Yes, civilians. 

I don't have a "belief". These are just factual things. 



> The notion that America did something with resolve when the UN didn't? The notion that an American President did the right thing for a change?


The notion is the pretense that we went in there because Iraq violated our treaty. That was the lie. That is the notion I disagree with. 

Who is to dictate what is right and wrong. 

Maybe the events of Saddam's rule needed to play out. People eventually get fed up and revolt. They change. It's slow. 

Maybe they needed intervention. You will never know. 

But, what we did do is rid any chance that this country can say that it liberated itself and put into power the ideals they are comfortable with.



> What exactly are you condemning? Any condemnation of any 'notion behind' the attack is detrimental to the success of the mission.


No! It isn't. 

I do not blindly agree with our actions. If we were overseas killing/maiming/raping small villages ... I would still want our young men/women back safely. I would NOT support the cause.

I do NOT support our cause. I do NOT agree with sending my countries children overseas to fight and die endlessly for a problem that has existed since the dawn of time. 

I support our children. I want them to live. I want the children of that country to live. 




> Imagine a soldier in Iraq tonight, a Portland TrailBlazer fan from Portland reading your post. How can he interpret that paragraph as supportive? Who are you to 'condemn the notion behind' a belief that he is being asked to risk his life for. Shame on You.


Shame on me? This type of thought is EXACTLY what they want you to think. Do you believe all our children believe in this war?



> THERE WERE WMD'S! There were all along. Hans Blix said so again the other night. He said the Iraqi's showed him an area where they destroyed some WMD's. The UN could not determine how much had been destroyed. Where did you get the idea that Iraq never had WMD's? Even John Kerry knew that.


Misquote.



> You claim that the Civil War made our country grow in the same post that you complain about the Federal gov't?


I complain about the manner in which the federal government is progressing. 

I don't dislike the end result of the Civil War, although I side with the South in the ideology that States should contain enough power to govern themselves. 

But - the federal system isn't bad unless we let it get out of hand. and we have. 



> Do you know what the Civil War was about? It was about states rights. The Civil War did more harm to the Constitution than George Bush could ever do. The Civil War destroyed the Federation and made the Republic we have today. Funny how history books leave that side out eh?


I do know. I just am not opposed to the system that is in place.

See we aren't keeping them in check. I heard someone once say: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

The federal was not supposed to be all-powerful. 

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the federal has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which federal power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of federal power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

It is a ZERO SUM game.



> Can't change the past but so far only one party's candidate has had the resolve to do the right thing.


Again, you focus on right and wrong. And again with these party's. Who knows what any other "party" would do. 



> Don't kid yourself. Keep an eye out for the one that will change his story to get elected. I think you will find the other one sticks to his guns even if he was wrong. Besides you're a Texan you sure as hell don't want some Kennedy Liberal from Massachusets in there.


Right now, I don't feel anyone that has a chance to be in office is worth voting for. I am more for open revolt then I am for any of these jackasses - regardless of political persuasion. 

The people have been lost in all of this. 

Play.

<b>How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think. --Adolf Hitler </b>


----------



## nikebasketball (Jan 28, 2004)

*
Exactly when does Donald Rumsfeld ever tell the truth?
*


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> "I dare say most Democrat leaders are secretly hoping for another terroist attack on U.S. soil so they can blame it on Bush."
> 
> That's disgusting.


As disgusting as it sounds, I wouldn't be overly suprised if certain sects within our government wish for it ... regardless of outward political affiliation. 

I said I would reserve judgement on the 911 attacks until I saw the ramifications (ie. laws passed, reaction). The moves made after the attack scare me to the point that I am not sure what I believe. The Patriot Act ... strong armed through Congress. Drawn up in less than a week. Ick. I don't know. 

I am not saying that it is, but I wouldn't be overly suprised if the attack wasn't helped along by certain entities within our government. 

The loss of life isn't that important for those who grab for power.

I'm not saying Bush or anyone in particular. But, there are things that don't sit well with me. I makes me ill, either way. 

Play.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

the notion that there are not and have not been WMD in iraq in the last few years and even up until the start of the invasion in 2003 is completely false.

If you'd like, I can provide several links to virtually every major gov't and independent global arms monitoring services, including the UN's own data from 1991 through 2003, that shows unequivocally that Iraq possessed WMD, had not accounted for hundreds of tons of WMD, and was presumed by every single gov't and global arms monitoring service as still possessing WMD in 2003 as of the beginning of Gulf War 2.

to try and claim otherwise a year later is either intentional ignorance, party line spin doctoring, or absolute irrationality. Unless you want people with half a brain to assume you are completely incapable of intelligent thought, do not even try to spin that here.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> If you'd like, I can provide several links to virtually every major gov't and independent global arms monitoring services, including the UN's own data from 1991 through 2003, that shows unequivocally that Iraq possessed WMD, had not accounted for hundreds of tons of WMD, and was presumed by every single gov't and global arms monitoring service as still possessing WMD in 2003 as of the beginning of Gulf War 2.


Yes, please do.



> to try and claim otherwise a year later is either intentional ignorance, party line spin doctoring, or absolute irrationality. Unless you want people with half a brain to assume you are completely incapable of intelligent thought, do not even try to spin that here.


Easy there killer.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Great post, Tommyboy. I'm sick and tired of all this Monday morning quarterbacking on Iraq. I don't care if it's Hans Blix or Chirac or John Doe, all they're doing is piling on when it's easy or politically convenient. Ten years from now, when the Iraqis are voting in open elections and democracy is fully entrenched, the liberation of Iraq by the U.S. will be considered a major turning point in Middle Eastern history.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Ten years from now, when the Iraqis are voting in open elections and democracy is fully entrenched, the liberation of Iraq by the U.S. will be considered a major turning point in Middle Eastern history.


Why is democracy a good thing? Why is this liberating? Why cannot they chose their own form of government?

Want to know why?

Because we can control democracy. 

They will be forced to "buy into" the world government. 

I notice you reply to like-minded thinking. Why don't you debate anymore?

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Why is democracy a good thing? Why is this liberating? Why cannot they chose their own form of government?"


They ARE choosing their own form of government. That's what their recent constitutional convention was all about. It was the Iraqi people themselves deciding what form their new government would take. In a poll conducted just last week, over 80 percent of Iraqis said they wanted democracy.

Why is democracy a "good thing"? Well, for starters, it means you are less likely to be ruled by a tyrannical dictator who rapes your wives and daughters, cuts your ears and tongue off, and throws your children in prison.

I choose not to debate you most of the time because you ask questions like the ones above.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> They ARE choosing their own form of government. That's what their recent constitutional convention was all about. It was the Iraqi people themselves deciding what form their new government would take. In a poll conducted just last week, over 80 percent of Iraqis said they wanted democracy.


And who tells you this? Our government and the media. Very reliable sources. 

Do I doubt that democracy is the choice they would make? I don't know. 

There a A GREAT MANY drawbacks to it. But, the Iraqi's have already let the snake in the door. 

They are going to be owned, just like the United States and almost every other country outside of China.



> Why is democracy a "good thing"? Well, for starters, it means you are less likely to be ruled by a tyrannical dictator who rapes your wives and daughters, cuts your ears and tongue off, and throws your children in prison.


It can be argued that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. 

But, you are taking an extreme and then casting democracy against it. Just so we are on the same page -- is this the same democracy that knowingly exposed our own soldiers to toxins and radiation? Is this the same democracy that ALLOWED Pearl Harbor to be attacked? Nay, exposed it even! Is this the same democracy that dropped TWO warheads on civilian populations and then cries foul when our building gets toppled? 

I understand the reasoning for each offense ... and there are more... but, it isn't like democracy is some knight in shining armor. 



> I choose not to debate you most of the time because you ask questions like the ones above.


I ask questions like I do to get you to:
A) Explain yourself.
B) Think.

Sometimes we just take things at face value and don't ask the why and how's of it. When that happens we lose the battle.

I am VERY untrusting when it comes to our government. VERY. 

Play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Why don't you debate anymore?
> ...


¿El queso es viejo y moldy, dónde es el cuarto sanitario?


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> And who tells you this? Our government and the media. Very reliable sources.
> ...




we don't live in a democracy, in case you didn't know. This is a republic.

virtually no country operates a true democracy that I know of. A true democracy is really not a good political system.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> 
> ¿El queso es viejo y moldy, dónde es el cuarto sanitario?


The cheese is old and moldy, where is the sanitary room???

¿Y de viejo de es de queso de El sanitario bolorento de cuarto de el de es de dónde? 

funny, if you translate the cheese is old and moldy, where is the sanitary room into Portuguese, and back into english, it's jibberish.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> ¿El queso es viejo y moldy, dónde es el cuarto sanitario?


I'm not up on my Spanish ... 

but ... 

From reading that, I got something about cheeze that is moldy and old and something about a room of sanatation or room of toilets. 

Do you mean "el baño"(bathroom)? That makes a heck of a lot more sense then the room of sanitation. 

Why not try:

¿El queso es viejo y mohoso, dónde está el cuarto de baño?

or better yet, because no one who speaks Spanish is likely to use cuarto de before baño you could say:

¿El queso es viejo y mohoso, dónde está el baño?

But --- I assume you are trying to be funny by quoting Encino Man.
_"El queso es viejo y petrido. Donde esta el sanitarios?"_
--Encino Man 

Besides, if the cheese is old and moldy, I recommend not eating it. 

Also, in case you hadn't noticed by the tone of the message, I did not find the attempted slight on me to be amusing in the least.

Play. 

_"Sanitation? Sanitation? I told you to tell them you was in a sanitarium, not sanitation.."_ - <b>Al Pacino (Scarface)</b>


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> we don't live in a democracy, in case you didn't know. This is a republic.
> 
> virtually no country operates a true democracy that I know of. A true democracy is really not a good political system.


Yes Beavis, I normally throw that out. It wasn't the time or place to bring that discussion up again.

Besides didn't YOU and I have this exact conversation, in which you implied that I did not need to be condecending?

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Duplicate.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, please do.


CIA 
FAS 
Britain 
IISS 
CDI 
DEMS 
CEIP 
GWU 
UN 
Blix 
UNMOVIC


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes Beavis, I normally throw that out. It wasn't the time or place to bring that discussion up again.
> ...


sorry, didn't mean to be condescending. I honestly didn't know if you knew or not. A lot of people are under the (false) assumption that the US is a democracy. I used to be.


later


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Tommyboy:

Thank you, thank you! Those links are fantastic. They should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the true story of Iraq's WMD program. Reading those sources (and I haven't read them all yet) makes one realize just how much deception is being perpetrated by the Dems in their effort to undermine Bush. It's perfectly clear that most of the world believed Saddam had WMD. This idea that Bush led everyone down the primrose path is sheer nonsense.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

USA WINS. Bush haters lose.

So..now that this thread has been settled. 

Anyone want to discuss gay marriage? 

I'm hesitant to start another OT thread without a quorum. But I do have a rather pointed opinion about that topic.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> USA WINS. Bush haters lose.


I can't even begin to fathom where this comment came from.

I don't hate Bush any more then I hate the other candidate. In fact, let's just put it this way - I hate the system. 

The system is still flawed and you have yet to convince me that USA wins. In fact, I think the citizens are big losers in this whether or not Saddam had weapons or not. 



> So..now that this thread has been settled.


I think this thread became a many-headed monster - I doubt all issues have been settled. Despite the back-slapping Talkhard gave you. 

Typically one has not settled anything the moment a like-minded individual agrees. 



> Anyone want to discuss gay marriage?


Been there - done that. Go back about 10 pages and you'll see the link. Post there if you wish. I'm sure you will get plenty of posts. 

But, beware - I'd read the whole thing before chiming in. We really covered a LOT of ground from government to religion to spirituality.



> I'm hesitant to start another OT thread without a quorum. But I do have a rather pointed opinion about that topic.


Don't be. It is what makes PDX fans unique ... the ability to talk about anything and everything.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> CIA
> FAS
> Britain
> ...



[sarcasm]Wow, these are some EXTREMELY credible sources with nothing to gain and the dates of the articles are within what one would consider "current". [/sarcasm]

Seriously, let's examine your "evidence", before you proclaim yourself righteous on this one.

* CIA - do we really even need to delve into the illegalities of the CIA?! If anyone was behind this - I'd put the stamp on them. 

* FAS - A "National Intelligence" briefing ... hmmm... I'm sure they are just itching to go counter to our current effort. 

* Britain - Oh boy! Our closest ally in this effort! So far, your evidence is like asking a Christian if they believe that a Biblical God exists. Let's go to a little less biased opinion. 

* IISS - A nice read, that goes counter to every inspector's reports. But a nice read nonetheless, I have little to counter on this document.

* CDI - Since you decide to hunt and peck for your artcles, so shall I: CDI Newer Report 

* DEMS - I can't even fathom what a republican radio station has to do with supporting documentation.

* CEIP - Alright, baby! Why not just look at an old document and extrapolate? If we use your report given, we just did. Why not read the current report?! Newest CEIP article --- <b>(</b>Specifically this section<b>) </b>

* GWU - Woo-hoo! Another government produced document from our very own "National Security" agency. Awesome. 

* UN - I don't even know how you think this report helps your case? They say nothing about current potential! Of course, I skimmed, but you can point me to a specific area. According to the Nuclear Control Institute (nci.org/heu.htm), "With bomb-grade, high-enriched uranium (HEU), a student could make a bomb powerful enough to destroy a city". 

* Blix - Wow! This might be the worst... Blix in 2001. How about Blix from last month? Blix, whose team of U.N. inspectors did not make any significant weapons finds during months of searching Iraq before the war, said it was clear now that there were no weapons of mass destruction there before the U.S.-led invasion.  

* UNMOVIC - A chronological set of events? I didn't even bother to sift through it for some hidden nugget. Give me a specific date or range of dates to look at. 

Trying to search through your "evidence" is like searching for nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just don't exist. The best of your evidence presented was circumstatial and outdated. I can't understand the relevance.

Under the law, a freely made admission of the facts is the highest level of evidence. The Bush administration, the chief proponent of the war against Iraq, has admitted that its principal argument for the war might not be substantiated. Bush suggested that this did not matter. <b>But, in fact, it does.</b>

On January 23, David Kay, who led the American search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, WMDs, resigned after nine months of a fruitless hunt. When asked about Iraqi WMDs, he said: <i>"I don't think they existed." </i>

A day later, he said Iraq had abandoned, in the 1990s, its production of WMDs in response to the UN inspection system. On January 24, US Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that there may not be WMDs in Iraq. On January 26, the White House backed away from its assertions about Iraq's WMDs. This largely disposes of the emphatic allegations presented as facts about the Iraqi WMDs.

Other allegations are too self-evidently untrue to warrant any refutation. On July 14, 2003, Bush made the following incredible claim: <I>"We gave him (Saddam Hussain) a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."</i>

We know not only that Iraq let the inspectors in, but also that UN inspectors found no WMDs and that Baghdad tried until the very last minute, through backdoor channels, to avoid war by offering Washington oil concessions, military co-operation and even accommodation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But to no avail.

Perhaps the most remarkable admission of the irrelevance of the WMDs claims came in the television interview Bush gave to ABC's Diane Sawyer on December 16, 2003. Before millions of viewers, Sawyer listed the numerous allegations presented as facts about Iraq's WMDs. 

She said people were asking questions about allegations, stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to the possibility that he (Saddam) could move to acquire those weapons still. 

Bush said: <b><i>"So what's the difference?" </b></i>The difference is that a legally weak argument for the war has now become indefensible. Bush's principal argument for the war was that Saddam possessed large quantities of WMDs and this posed a threat to international peace and security. The US and the UK claimed the right to defend themselves, with or without the UN, against this threat to international peace. 

The UN Charter recognises in Article 51 the inherent right of self-defence, but only <i>"if an armed attack occurs"</i> against a UN member state, and only until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Clearly, the war against Iraq could not be justified by reference to Article 51.

In customary law, it was an American Secretary of State (Daniel Webster) who made the classic and accepted formulation of the right to self-defence in the 19th century Caroline case, adopted by the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. 

<i>"There must be a necessity of self-defence,"</i> he said, <I>"instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."</i> Clearly this does not apply to whatever threat Iraq allegedly posed. In fact, Bush and Blair attempted nothing less than the unilateral creation of a new norm of international law: the Bush doctrine of preventive war. 

But the international community, including the US government itself, rejected the doctrine of preventive war as a recipe for lawlessness and anarchy when it was invoked by Israel to justify its 1981 bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor. The Reagan administration condemned the attack and briefly halted delivery to Israel of US F-16 bombers.

The UN Security Council, in refusing to give the US and the UK an explicit authorisation to use force against Iraq, also rejected the American argument of preventive war. As the representative of Mexico pointed out after the vote on Resolution 1441: <i>"the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council."</i>

The preventive doctrine with its emphasis on self-help is legally disputed because it has no basis under international law. Now, the latest admissions about WMDs leave the argument for war legally and politically indefensible. What, then, was the justification for the war?

As American Representative Jane Harman of California put it a few weeks ago: <i>"In light of Dr. Kay's statement, the president owes the American public and the world an explanation."</i>

Bush and Blair answer that they saved the Iraqis from Saddam. But the humanitarian argument is irrelevant because humanitarian intervention laws apply to imminent or ongoing massacres, not to atrocities already committed and largely ignored in the past.

Rule of law and civilised international relations suffer a setback when the president of a superpower substitutes his will to that of the international community, disregards international law and, in the face of indefensible reasons for the war he started and the consequent loss of innocent lives, says: What is the difference?


Here's a summary, from the Carnegie website:
<i>

<b>Iraq WMD Was Not An Immediate Threat· Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.</b>
· Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991. 
· Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

<b>Inspections Were Working· Post-war searches suggest the UN inspections were on track to find what was there. </b>
· International constraints, sanctions, procurement, investigations, and the export/import control mechanism appear to have been considerably more effective than was thought.

<b>Intelligence Failed and Was Misrepresented</b>
· Intelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
· Intelligence community appears to have been unduly influenced by policymakers' views. 
· Officials misrepresented threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missiles programs over and above intelligence findings.

<b>Terrorist Connection Missing· No solid evidence of cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. </b>
· No evidence that Iraq would have transferred WMD to terrorists-and much evidence to counter it. 
· No evidence to suggest that deterrence was no longer operable.

<b>Post-War WMD Search Ignored Key Resources· Past relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited. </b>
· Data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. Direct involvement of those who compiled the more-than-30-million- page record is needed.

<b>War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option</b>
· There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections."</i>

In closing, let me leave you with another article in which another arms inspector says there were/are no WMDs in Iraq.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> sorry, didn't mean to be condescending.


Dude, no sweat! 

I was just joshing with you, because I think we had the discussion between ourselves once before ... and you gave me heck for pointing it out to you. 



> I honestly didn't know if you knew or not. A lot of people are under the (false) assumption that the US is a democracy. I used to be.


I know. It's weird too, because we say the pledge as kids:

<i>"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the <b>republic</b> for which it stands..."</i>

Play.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> [sarcasm]Wow, these are some EXTREMELY credible sources with nothing to gain and the dates of the articles are within what one would consider "current". [/sarcasm]




i wasn't looking for "current" info, I was showing you the info that was present from 1991-2003 that the US acted on. Anyone can post a link to an article today in hindsight, hell I could have done that. I was showing you the links to the info that was available during the run up for war. All of the monday morning quarterbacks are 100% right now, but we're talking about my claim that at the time most intelligence was pointing at WMD in Iraq. The fact they haven't been found yet means two things to me: 1) worldwide intelligence was 100% wrong or 2) the WMD's exist, but have been hidden somewhere.
Of those two conclusions, I suspect #2 is the most plausible.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> * Blix - Wow! This might be the worst... Blix in 2001. How about Blix from last month? Blix, whose team of U.N. inspectors did not make any significant weapons finds during months of searching Iraq before the war, said it was clear now that there were no weapons of mass destruction there before the U.S.-led invasion.


Hey Play..Did you actually read that link? 

I don't see any direct quotes of Blix anywhere. What official document did Blix release last month? He's got new evidence?

Because all I see is a quote of an unnamed British 'Senior Judge' by CNN.

Let me get this right.

You trust a CNN reporters quote of an unnamed British Senior Judge quoting Hans Blix off the record more than you trust the sources that put their names on official documents from Tommyboy?

Give me a break Play. 

Anyone can find heresay to back up their beliefs. Believe who you will. 

You didn't write for X-Files did you?

Accept your fate. You are trapped in Kaczynski's nightmare.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> i wasn't looking for "current" info, I was showing you the info that was present from 1991-2003 that the US acted on. Anyone can post a link to an article today in hindsight, hell I could have done that. I was showing you the links to the info that was available during the run up for war. All of the monday morning quarterbacks are 100% right now, but we're talking about my claim that at the time most intelligence was pointing at WMD in Iraq. The fact they haven't been found yet means two things to me: 1) worldwide intelligence was 100% wrong or 2) the WMD's exist, but have been hidden somewhere.
> Of those two conclusions, I suspect #2 is the most plausible.


I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think WMD was what this was was about. That was the scape-clause. The hood-wink, as it were. 

I think that we used this as an excuse and a reason to pursue goals pursuant to whatever end they wanted. I don't truth the government, so I tend to believe that there was some motive that delves deeper into control. 

Logically speaking, we should all be sounding off about the emerging body of evidence that the Bush White House hyped, manipulated and puffed up evidence and generally bamboozled the American people about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But, if it’s all the same, can we just face facts instead?

C’mon. There’s no “emerging body of evidence.” 

If you were (a) paying attention to this debate, and (b) not an utterly rabid ideologue, you knew the administration was tossing around all sorts of improbable, unproven or just plain ridiculous stories. All that’s changed is that something else truly unexpected happened: We didn’t find anything — no chemicals, no biologicals, no nothing — at least not yet. And that fact suddenly made it possible to discuss, or maybe just impossible to ignore, what most of us knew all along. 

Let’s review how we got here.

There were really two WMD debates. One was about chemical and low-end biological weapons. The other was about smallpox, nukes, al Qaeda and pretty much everything else under the sun.

On the former, the White House didn’t hoodwink anyone, since virtually everyone in the foreign policy mainstream figured that Iraq at least maintained a chemical and biological weapons capacity. I certainly thought so. 

At a minimum, there was solid circumstantial evidence to believe that they did. Frankly, there still is. 

The Iraqis stubbornly resisted and stymied the U.N. inspectors until the old inspections regime collapsed in 1998 — and at a very high cost. Back then the inspectors still believed that vast stocks of chemical and biological agents remained unaccounted for. It made no sense to believe that with the inspectors gone the Iraqis would not only shutter their weapons program but ditch the goods they’d expended so much effort to conceal.

Debate No. 2 was an entirely different story. Here, the administration was clearly in kitchen-sink territory. The Iraqis were close to getting a nuke. (Remember Condi’s line — “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” — and Dick Cheney’s wild-eyed predictions.) They were tight with al Qaeda. They were developing horrible and unimaginable new bacteriological agents. They might be doing this; they might be doing that. Might, might, might!

It’s not so much that the administration was lying — as in saying things it knew to be false — as it was happy to pass along or credit almost anything anybody said no matter how speculative the theory or how flimsy the evidence: uncorroborated tales from defectors, crackpot theories from think-tank denizens, worst-case-scenario speculations, anything.

We had good reason to suspect Saddam’s continuing nuclear ambitions, and that made it extremely important to get inspectors back in the country. Unlike chemical and biological weapons, a serious nuclear program is hard to conceal. But long before the current brouhaha broke out over the bogus Niger-uranium sale documents, little of the administration’s actual evidence on the nuclear front stood up to real scrutiny. 

Meanwhile, the evidence for an al Qaeda link ranged from the extremely speculative to the extremely ridiculous.

To get a feel for the quality of the administration’s evidence for an al Qaeda link, just remember how often administration officials jabbered on about Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda-affiliated jihadist group operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan. 

That sounded like the smoking gun until you considered that that was the part of Iraq that Saddam hadn’t controlled for years because of our no-fly zones. 

True, there were some speculative and very self-interested allegations that Saddam might be aiding Ansar to knock the dominant pro-U.S. Kurdish parties off balance. But based simply on Ansar’s location, Saddam might as credibly have accused us of harboring Ansar against him as the other way around. 

That and lots of other stuff just didn’t pass the laugh test. But pretty much everyone in the press and the political class gave them a pass. 

The deal was that all of the more ridiculous and far-fetched statements would be forgiven and forgotten so long as we found a good stash of chemicals and biologicals. It was only after even that stuff didn’t turn up that folks gave a long second thought to what top administration officials had been peddling.

So let’s not kid ourselves by pretending there’s some new debate about whether the White House hyped and misled the public about the scope of Iraqi WMD or an al Qaeda link. We knew that. 

The real question is whether top administration officials hyped and misled themselves too, and why so many otherwise sensible people went so long pretending this wasn’t a problem.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Hey Play..Did you actually read that link?


The real question is - did you? How many places were there indications that "Blix said". Not a direct quote, but a paraphrase. 



> I don't see any direct quotes of Blix anywhere. What official document did Blix release last month? He's got new evidence?


So, if one paraphrases someone, then it becomes an untruth?



> Because all I see is a quote of an unnamed British 'Senior Judge' by CNN.


There were direct quotes at the TOP of the article as well as alluding to Blix quotes. 



> You trust a CNN reporters quote of an unnamed British Senior Judge quoting Hans Blix off the record more than you trust the sources that put their names on official documents from Tommyboy?


Ummm... I believe I pretty much discredited all but one of the documents. Shall I really search for links on direct quotes from Blix? I can provide it if needed. 

Obviously, you are going to believe what you will because it was force fed to you. I've decided to research and form my own opinion -- looking at both sides of the equation. 

I doubt you've done this - you seem to have this, well, pro-idealistic kind of spirit.



> Give me a break Play.


Consider your break given.



> Anyone can find heresay to back up their beliefs. Believe who you will.


I believe I provided sources ranging from CNN to the UN. What more do I need to bring to the table (of recent documentation) for you to even rethink your position that the US is perfectly right and justified?



> You didn't write for X-Files did you?


No, but I am glad you think that whenever we look objectively at our national issues and form a conflicting opinion - we are science-fiction writers. 

I don't think the founding fathers would like that attitude too much.



> Accept your fate. You are trapped in Kaczynski's nightmare.


Unless you are alluding to a poem that I don't know about, I take serious offense to being compared to the unabomber. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> I don't see any direct quotes of Blix anywhere. What official document did Blix release last month? He's got new evidence?


Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago
By REUTERS


Filed at 10:31 p.m. ET

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.

In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the
search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best.

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that
anything will be found," Blix said in the interview, which was
broadcast on Wednesday.

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix said.


BLIX: WMD NO LONGER TOP PRIORITY Apr 10 2003




From Richard Wallace US Editor In Washington DC


HANS Blix yesterday claimed finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was no longer top priority for the US and Britain.

The UN chief weapons inspector said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the Coalition's central objective.

And he linked the invasion of Iraq to the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Dr Blix, who headed the weapons inspection team before war broke out, said: "Regime change is the principal objective.

"The attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon changed everything - September 11 paved the way for incursions to become full-scale invasions."

Speaking to a Spanish newspaper, Dr Blix claimed the US tired of weapons inspections when Iraq began to cooperate.

He said: "The Americans began to lose patience at the beginning of March. It seemed that with temperatures rising in Iraq, the attacks had to begin."


No 
No 
No 


Shall I continue? Blix and Kay get into all sorts of bashing. Our reliance on defector accounts to just the dogged determination to go to war.

Play.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

The promos for this upcoming Sunday's 60 Minutes are saying they'll have on a former senior Bush military advisor (Beers maybe?) who claims Bush dropped the ball in the Middle East. It might be interesting and provide some futher fuel for this threads fire...

STOMP


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> SYDNEY (Reuters) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.


Now that is interesting isn't it..because he didn't say that before the war. 

Why is everyone pointing their finger at Bush when Blix and the UN gave the world such false information? 

Because a Texas Republican is getting the job done. That's why. 



> Personally I don't care if EVERYONE lied about Iraq and the reason we went to war. If they did the shame is that they HAD to lie about it. The UN failed at the end of the first Gulf War when they thought Sadaam would change. The Democratic party through Bill Clinton passed up the chance to do the right thing. So they did the wrong thing. Why didn't we find WMD? Because Bill Clinton went to sleep on his watch. That's why. And only Allah knows who has Iraq's WMD now.
> 
> Even if President Bush went to war for oil he still has more compassion for the Iraqi people than Sadaam's regime ever did. Certainly more than the UN and ALL the people that oppose his efforts. Just because a Texan can get the job done through means you find offensive doesn't make it any less of a job well done..


Still applies.


----------



## Flaming Homer (Jan 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> Uh, huh. I'm sure it was just pure coincidence that Libya finally caved in right after our impressive military campaign in Iraq.
> ...


Wow, that must be the most pathetic and arrogant post I've ever read on this board. Really sad to read such an opinion:no:
And we're called 'Anti-American', what a joke.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Flaming Homer</b>!
> Wow, that must be the most pathetic and arrogant post I've ever read on this board. Really sad to read such an opinion:no:
> And we're called 'Anti-American', what a joke.


Trust me. 

Most do not hold this opinion. 

He certainly does NOT speak for me.

Play.


----------



## Flaming Homer (Jan 27, 2003)

@Playmaker0017:
Thanks for your support
I know that the majority thinks otherwise, like most europeans have no issues against america, especially it's population. Of course here are some idiots who blame the USA for everything, but those kind of people exists on both sides, greatly proven in this thread.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> Good post Talkhard and thanks for your analysis. I agree with you but find it hard to use such eloquent dialogue.
> 
> I perceive the most IMMEDIATE THREAT to myself and the other taxpaying and conscientious people of this fine nation are the leaders of the Democratic Party.
> ...


Why don't you learn to think for yourself before you go accusing people of being traitors? Too much Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh for you, my friend. To think that the Democrats alone are the ones who have politicized 9/11 is naieve to the extreme, illogical, and constitutes amateurish thinking.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> The promos for this upcoming Sunday's 60 Minutes are saying they'll have on a former senior Bush military advisor (Beers maybe?) who claims Bush dropped the ball in the Middle East. It might be interesting and provide some futher fuel for this threads fire...
> 
> STOMP


Here's a bit about the book by Richard Clarke.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/index.html


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Here's another recap of Clarks 60 minutes appearance and his book... 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/22/MNGPU5P5FR1.DTL

Clark served in military and counter terrorism roles in the white house administrations of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and for Dubya as the head of counter terrorism.

STOMP


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

There is a LOT to read here...I don't know who this person is exactly but some of what is being said is downright scary!

LINK 

OK City? O' Hare?

Anyone familiar with Alex Jones? David Shippers?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> There is a LOT to read here...I don't know who this person is exactly but some of what is being said is downright scary!
> 
> LINK
> ...


Grab your tinfoil hat! We're going to Infowars.com!

Art Bell and company are about as reliable as a Ford Pinto. 

5000 Republican Guard members living near Oklahoma City? Gimme a break.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Grab your tinfoil hat! We're going to Infowars.com!
> ...


Are these folks part of the Art Bell bunch?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> Are these folks part of the Art Bell bunch?


Yes.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes.


Thank you for answering. I really was not sure.

I remember hearing Art Bell talking about a weather machine he says the gov has and how they use it to manipulate weather to their advantage. They also said they could use it as a "weapon"...you know...make a storm on their enemy etc.

LOL

Crazy stuff. Sorry folks...I agree with Fork...I am not so sure OKC is a hotbed for terrorist training.....but then again, ya never know! :grinning:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> 
> Thank you for answering. I really was not sure.
> ...


I wouldn't put infowars or what's-his-name on the same page as Bell ... but maybe.

I think there is a little truth to a lot of the stories. I wouldn't put OKC or the WTC past our government, if it meant forwarding an agenda. Don't doubt it at all. 

As for a weather machine ... ick ... I dunno about all that. But, you'd be suprised to know some of the "straight-out-of-sci-fi" gadgets the government has. I know someone who worked at Bath Iron Works and was in on some testing for some sort of "ray" that (for lack of a better explaination) could stream sound directly into your brain. 

Don't know the physics of the thing nor did I have a first-hand account of it myself -- but I have no reason to think they were making it up.  

A good friend in MI talked to me about beams they can send from satellites that can give you a 3D layout of a building and the location of objects and persons ... if only so much as a crack in the wall exists. 

Weird stuff.

And this is stuff I was allowed to know about - so I can't imagine what I'm NOT allowed to know.

Play.


----------

