White House Says Iraq Weapons Search Is Over

[Sabz5150]

Originally posted by ahedau@Jan 12 2005, 11:42 PM
yeah, I've often found that ironic.
I site MM because you seem to buy his theory that the Afghan war is solely about oil and not about terrorism.

Do I see a conspiracy in that Afghanistan wants to become an industrialized nation and SELL a product that the WORLD wants? No. Not when so may nations and so many U.S. administrations have tried to make this happen before now.

Do I think it was the primary reason for going into Afghanistan? I'm not that gullible or ignorant. Ever see the bumper sticker," Ruin a liberal's day, quote historical fact" its applicable here.

Do I have a problem supporting Bin Laden as a fighter against the Soviet Union but then wanting to kill him after he masterminded or at least financed 9/11, the Cole attack, the first WTC bombing and the countless other aggressions towards the U.S.? do you?!!!

We also supported Russia during WWII but no one was crying foul during the Cold War.

We kicked Japan's ass in WWII and even occupied that country. It is strange to you that we support them now?

/threadjack

[post=444930]Quoted post[/post]​

Of course it wasn't the primary reason. Never said it was. However we should have made sure to finish the job we went there to do before starting something else, ESPECIALLY building pipelines. That looks bad no matter how you cut it. Get Binny, then do whatever else you want. How hard can it be to find a dude on dialasys in the middle of a desert?

What also looks bad is the immense amount of conflict of interest going on. Sure COI is all around us but does that make it legal?

As for Russia and Japan, I will agree that it's an 'ally today, enemy tomorrow world'. However in the case of Binny and the Jets, I guess it's history coming around to bite us in the ass. All we wanted was someone to push back the communists. We should have picked our allies a bit better.

 

[posol]

it's like that movie, i forget the name of it....

goes something like, write 3 letters.
the first, says 'blame it on your predecessor'
i forget the second one
and the last is write 3 letters.

someone know what im talking about back me up here...

 

[corvetteguy]

Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Jan 12 2005, 10:27 PM
fact is, that they are in a civil war.  the militia vs the iraqui gov't and the us troops.

there's nothing civil about war, but it has nothing to do with us..... just bush's investments and money in the pipelines and oil.

if you voted for bush, congraulations, you're an idiot.

[post=444888]Quoted post[/post]​

A- fucking -Men

Brian that reminds me of a joke.....


A teacher in texas is teaching a 4th grade class about politics. She decides to take a vote to see whose a Bush Fan or a Kerry Fan. All the kids raise their hands in favor of Bush except Johnny. The teachers was alittle furious, Bush growing up in Texas and all, and asked Johnny why he was a Kerry Fan. Johnny responded "Well my Mom is a Kerry Fan and my Dad is a Kerry, So i am a Kerry fan"...The teacher replied, "Well johnny, if your mother was an Idiot and your father was an idiot, what would that make you?"...Johnny replied.."A Bush Fan"

 

[spectacle]

4 more years bitch!!!!

 

[hcivic.com]

Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Jan 13 2005, 07:32 AM



it's like that movie, i forget the name of it....

goes something like, write 3 letters.
the first, says 'blame it on your predecessor'
i forget the second one
and the last is write 3 letters.

someone know what im talking about back me up here...

[post=445071]Quoted post[/post]​

ya the movie about boris yeltosn reelection
you get elected and handed three letters]
1 says
blame the guy before you
next problem comes open it and it says
blame those around you
thrid time open the letter and
write three letters
ya good movie

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by Blanco@Jan 13 2005, 12:49 PM
Typical Republican back pedaling. Why admit you're wrong when you can just spin it into something else?

[post=445043]Quoted post[/post]​

How is siting historical fact about past alliances to support an argument "Typical republican backpeddling"?

Ahedau is half right about the fighters here, there's a few reasons people here fight, jihad, blood feuds, tribal warring, religious extremist, whatever. Mostly it has to do with keeping whats yours, yours, unfortunely people here abuse power like most people take shits, and those that are getting fucked, are those that truely want to see Iraq do right, and have a future.

BUT none of that is the topic is it? The war in Iraq is for a few reasons, and people are choosing them to back up their side, no one yet has taken it in to a complete scope of events.

 

[ahedau]

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.

"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said.

"After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country," Pelosi said in a written statement. "Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all."

The war was started over WMDs and has been spun into what it is now. Now, we need to clean up the mess that we didn't need to make in the first place. The Bush administration has done little more than backpedal, point fingers, and pass the buck. That's the scope.

[post=445989]Quoted post[/post]​

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said..., "...President Bush need to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said.

shouldn’t "he" read "WE"??!!!
boy, don’t you guys have a short memory...

I remember the President looking Saddam in the eye via the TV and telling him to allow the UN to do its job--unfettered. I remember him giving Saddam a time table by which to exercise that option.

I also remember him telling Saddam what the consequences would be if he didn't. Well, Saddam didn't & GW was faced with following through on his threat. As a parent I cannot threaten my kids with an ultimatum if I'm not willing to follow through with it. The previous US admin had done a lot of that. They did it with Iraq, North Korea, China, Osama... Saddam wrongly assumed GW was like his predecessor and would keep redrawing the line in the sand. Unfortunately, for him George didn't.

The same intelligence that put us on this road was given to members of both parties. Both parties agreed to give the Commander in Chief the power to exercise his right to make a pre-emptive strike against a man that posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. The quotes supporting this are all over the internet. Look 'em up.

Has the war been handled as best it could? NO. Has the US made errors? YES Are we in the wrong war, at the wrong time? Unfortunately, history will answer that question. Is the world a safer place with Saddam out of power? Immediately it certainly is for the Kurds and the Shiites and the many other religious factions other than the Sunnis. And let's not forget the Israelites. We now know that Saddam was using the oil-for-food money payments from France, Germany & Russia to pay the families of Homicidal bombers after their sons & daughters killed innocent Israelis for doing nothing more than living and breathing.

How are we going to extricate ourselves from this quagmire? By holding free elections and not letting those bent on ruling by chaos & fear to even delay the democratic process. So the Sunni’s want to boycott the elections. How stupid of them. How can they be a part of shaping a free Iraq if they refuse to be a part of the process?

Focusing on who knew what when and why are we there does nothing to realize a means to getting us out and Iraq on her way to becoming a country run by its people for its people.

Continuing to divide this country along party lines will do nothing. For eight years it has reduced the DNC to a small, loud rabble of party faithful, foaming at the mouth and screaming for a fight in face of good common sense.

 

[VTEC_CBR]

Originally posted by ahedau@Jan 17 2005, 12:48 AM

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush should explain what happened.

"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said.

"After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country," Pelosi said in a written statement. "Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all."

The war was started over WMDs and has been spun into what it is now.  Now, we need to clean up the mess that we didn't need to make in the first place.  The Bush administration has done little more than backpedal, point fingers, and pass the buck.  That's the scope.

[post=445989]Quoted post[/post]​

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said..., "...President Bush need to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war," she said.

shouldn’t "he" read "WE"??!!!
boy, don’t you guys have a short memory...

I remember the President looking Saddam in the eye via the TV and telling him to allow the UN to do its job--unfettered. I remember him giving Saddam a time table by which to exercise that option.

I also remember him telling Saddam what the consequences would be if he didn't. Well, Saddam didn't & GW was faced with following through on his threat. As a parent I cannot threaten my kids with an ultimatum if I'm not willing to follow through with it. The previous US admin had done a lot of that. They did it with Iraq, North Korea, China, Osama... Saddam wrongly assumed GW was like his predecessor and would keep redrawing the line in the sand. Unfortunately, for him George didn't.

The same intelligence that put us on this road was given to members of both parties. Both parties agreed to give the Commander in Chief the power to exercise his right to make a pre-emptive strike against a man that posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. The quotes supporting this are all over the internet. Look 'em up.

Has the war been handled as best it could? NO. Has the US made errors? YES Are we in the wrong war, at the wrong time? Unfortunately, history will answer that question. Is the world a safer place with Saddam out of power? Immediately it certainly is for the Kurds and the Shiites and the many other religious factions other than the Sunnis. And let's not forget the Israelites. We now know that Saddam was using the oil-for-food money payments from France, Germany & Russia to pay the families of Homicidal bombers after their sons & daughters killed innocent Israelis for doing nothing more than living and breathing.

How are we going to extricate ourselves from this quagmire? By holding free elections and not letting those bent on ruling by chaos & fear to even delay the democratic process. So the Sunni’s want to boycott the elections. How stupid of them. How can they be a part of shaping a free Iraq if they refuse to be a part of the process?

Focusing on who knew what when and why are we there does nothing to realize a means to getting us out and Iraq on her way to becoming a country run by its people for its people.

Continuing to divide this country along party lines will do nothing. For eight years it has reduced the DNC to a small, loud rabble of party faithful, foaming at the mouth and screaming for a fight in face of good common sense.

[post=446696]Quoted post[/post]​

you're so right, the u.n. is a corrupt organization, but nobody seems to care about the largest (in terms of $$$) scandal in history. it's just bush is bad bush is bad.you know, getting the same intelligence from the cia, britain, AND russian intelligence that Saddam had it, he did what he had to do, hindsight is 20/20 isn't it, now the right thing to do is to stick it out and help them on their way to a free society, it's the humane thing to do.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by Blanco@Jan 18 2005, 10:53 AM
The U.N. has been saying, for several years, that there were no WMDs. Good thing they were STILL right.

[post=447276]Quoted post[/post]​

So, they were just humoring everyone till the days before the war?

 

[ahedau]

Originally posted by Blanco+Jan 18 2005, 05:43 PM-->

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Jan 18 2005, 02:30 PM
Blanco

@Jan 18 2005, 10:53 AM
The U.N. has been saying, for several years, that there were no WMDs.  Good thing they were STILL right.

[post=447276]Quoted post[/post]​

So, they were just humoring everyone till the days before the war?

[post=447476]Quoted post[/post]​

I'm honestly not sure if you're referring to the U.N. or Saddam.

As far as the U.N., they kind of didn't want the war to happen because they hadn't uncovered any hard evidence of WMDs. I might be mistaken though. And Saddam hasn't had any since around '94. So, the U.N. was still right in saying that there were no WMDs, like they'd already been saying for years. Bush felt that the intelligence that he had was stonger than that of the U.N., he just knew those weapons were there so he went against the U.N. with the pre-emptive. That was my only point with that statement.

[post=447610]Quoted post[/post]​

"As far as the U.N., they kind of didn't want the war to happen because they didn't want to loose their kickbacks so they hadn't uncovered any hard evidence of WMDs"

Is that what you meant to say? Remember, when you say the UN didn't want this you are actually referring to Germany, France & Russia.

Let's see Alex. I'll take three countries protecting their own interest in the oil-for-food scandal over the interest of the Iraqi people for $1000

 

[Sabz5150]

Originally posted by ahedau@Jan 18 2005, 06:09 PM

"As far as the U.N., they kind of didn't want the war to happen because they didn't want to loose their kickbacks so they hadn't uncovered any hard evidence of WMDs"

Is that what you meant to say? Remember, when you say the UN didn't want this you are actually referring to Germany, France & Russia.

Let's see Alex. I'll take three countries protecting their own interest in the oil-for-food scandal over the interest of the Iraqi people for $1000

[post=447636]Quoted post[/post]​

Oh... THOSE kickbacks... the ones now going to Bush's friends.

How about taking the US protecting its interest in oil over the Iraqi people.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[xj0hnx]

must....................stop..............useless............thread.............