The ..2012.... Political thread
-
I do not believe the UN voted unanimously to go to war. i believe Canada did not support it. I believe most of the nation wanted further inspection and felt Saddam was cooperating. We went to war with artist renderings and a bag of lies. Even in the other real wars we had, photographs to back up going into a war, were produced. You tell me with all the modern day tools we have they could not find ONE actual photo to support their claim. blows my mind how some of you still justify that invasion of a foreign country..may the Repuck's never rise again. The only weapon we found were weapons of mass deception. Saddam and Bin Laden were biter enemies. There were no terrorist in Iraq but there are in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen....oh yeah and behind every Bush! The terrorist were Saudi's and so was Bin Laden. We wanted control the flow of Iraq oil ( notice oil prices went sky high and stayed)and the powers that have way to much control on are banking and media wanted us protecting Israel. Iran will be next they want their oil and they got there hands on Libya so that pretty much all of it. Watch Iraq for Sale.. that will open your eyes to WHY we went to war in the first place..military industrial complex and frigging banking, wall street, scum. Now with all this said we could all vote for the Libertarian and meet in the middle. Really screw both party if we all voted for Ron Paul.
-
rich n:
service_gamer:
It's one thing to argue that taking Saddam out was ultimately the best thing to do (though considering the quagmire that followed, probably not), but when I read such smarmy responses from those who actually defend the WMD assertions in regards to Iraq, it's pretty galling. If the WMDs that we were looking for were there (yes, we understand that they don't necessarily mean nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'), then why did the administration admit to being incorrect on its chief reason for going to war? And are you really arguing that the UN was all-in on our invasion of Iraq? The best argument you can make is that the UN resolution conceded Iraq wasn't perfect, but made attempts to get 'up to code' (so to speak) and that they would monitor their progress. It's not like they went to our president and said 'Welp, there are some problems, go get 'em cowboy!' If you want to decry liberalism as an excuse to perpetuate revisionist history, that's fine, but I think it might be a bit more welcome on a Toby Keith message board.
This is all I need to know: Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" and not "immediate".
Here you go: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm I'll give you one of the quotes from the story, from Hans Blix: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
-
The United States Government knew EXACTLY what Saddam did and did not have. How? Because The United States Government gave it to him!
-
service_gamer:
rich n:
service_gamer:
It's one thing to argue that taking Saddam out was ultimately the best thing to do (though considering the quagmire that followed, probably not), but when I read such smarmy responses from those who actually defend the WMD assertions in regards to Iraq, it's pretty galling. If the WMDs that we were looking for were there (yes, we understand that they don't necessarily mean nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'), then why did the administration admit to being incorrect on its chief reason for going to war? And are you really arguing that the UN was all-in on our invasion of Iraq? The best argument you can make is that the UN resolution conceded Iraq wasn't perfect, but made attempts to get 'up to code' (so to speak) and that they would monitor their progress. It's not like they went to our president and said 'Welp, there are some problems, go get 'em cowboy!' If you want to decry liberalism as an excuse to perpetuate revisionist history, that's fine, but I think it might be a bit more welcome on a Toby Keith message board.
This is all I need to know: Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" and not "immediate".
Here you go: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm I'll give you one of the quotes from the story, from Hans Blix: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
The question wasn't whether Hans agreed with the war, only that he found Saddam/Iraq to be non-compliant
-
appletart2:
I do not believe the UN voted unanimously to go to war...
It doesn't matter what you want to believe, Apples. That won't change what happened. We're talking about the UN Security Council and they voted unanimously in favor of the resolution. Sorry.
-
rich n:
service_gamer:
rich n:
service_gamer:
It's one thing to argue that taking Saddam out was ultimately the best thing to do (though considering the quagmire that followed, probably not), but when I read such smarmy responses from those who actually defend the WMD assertions in regards to Iraq, it's pretty galling. If the WMDs that we were looking for were there (yes, we understand that they don't necessarily mean nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'), then why did the administration admit to being incorrect on its chief reason for going to war? And are you really arguing that the UN was all-in on our invasion of Iraq? The best argument you can make is that the UN resolution conceded Iraq wasn't perfect, but made attempts to get 'up to code' (so to speak) and that they would monitor their progress. It's not like they went to our president and said 'Welp, there are some problems, go get 'em cowboy!' If you want to decry liberalism as an excuse to perpetuate revisionist history, that's fine, but I think it might be a bit more welcome on a Toby Keith message board.
This is all I need to know: Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" and not "immediate".
Here you go: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm I'll give you one of the quotes from the story, from Hans Blix: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
The question wasn't whether Hans agreed with the war, only that he found Saddam/Iraq to be non-compliant
Okay, so we have U.N. weapons inspector disagreeing with the reasons for war and the Bush administration admitting that the intelligence that led to the war was flawed. If you want to argue that 'Gee, we probably shouldn't have gone in, but maybe it wasn't so bad that we got Saddam out' I can at least respect your argument. But when by any objective measure the facts state that the Bush administration acted defiantly in invading Iraq and based its actions on, at best, flawed intelligence and, at worst, fabricated intelligence, defending the war on the merits of some compliance issues is absurd. Arguing that the Bush administration meant the most broad-reaching definition of WMDs is ridiculous; they painted Iraq as a regime on the cusp of possessing nuclear warheads. You can confirm this by a simple Google News search covering the buildup to the war and the early days of fighting, and you can confirm that the administration not only used nuclear scare tactics, but also took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to lead us into Iraq. Why else would President Bush hold a press conference to admit that Iraq didn't possess WMDs and also had nothing to do with 9/11? If the motives for going to war were as pure as you say they were, why would he bring up and concede such points?
-
service_gamer:
Okay, so we have U.N. weapons inspector disagreeing with the reasons for war and the Bush administration admitting that the intelligence that led to the war was flawed. If you want to argue that 'Gee, we probably shouldn't have gone in, but maybe it wasn't so bad that we got Saddam out' I can at least respect your argument. But when by any objective measure the facts state that the Bush administration acted defiantly in invading Iraq and based its actions on, at best, flawed intelligence and, at worst, fabricated intelligence, defending the war on the merits of some compliance issues is absurd. Arguing that the Bush administration meant the most broad-reaching definition of WMDs is ridiculous; they painted Iraq as a regime on the cusp of possessing nuclear warheads. You can confirm this by a simple Google News search covering the buildup to the war and the early days of fighting, and you can confirm that the administration not only used nuclear scare tactics, but also took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to lead us into Iraq. Why else would President Bush hold a press conference to admit that Iraq didn't possess WMDs and also had nothing to do with 9/11? If the motives for going to war were as pure as you say they were, why would he bring up and concede such points?
It?s interesting that your wrath is so?one directional. All George Bush did was pick up where his predecessors left off, yet you seem to think he is the one who contrived some make-believe threat from Hussein. Why no indignation directed at the other saber rattlers? ?If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction program.? President Clinton, 2/17/98 ?He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.? Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, 2/18/98 ?Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.? Madeline Albright, Secretary of State for President Clinton, 11/10/99 ?We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq?s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.? Al Gore, 9/23/02 ?We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.? Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), 9/27/02 ?He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.? Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 10/10/02 ?In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.? Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), 10/10/02 ?I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.? Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), 10/9/02 And on and on and on. There is so much more where that came from, but I?ll spare you the cut-and-paste. You think all these people were credible but not George Bush? He had the support of not only the UN, but of the United States Congress, including prominent Democrats. Do you think Bush had his own private source of intelligence that contradicted what everyone else knew? Leaders world-wide said the same thing about Hussein and his weapons, but only George Bush, alone, knew that there were no such weapons, right? Is that your point? Your comment about Bush saying at a press conference that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 sounds more like an answer to a question posed to him from a reporter, since he had never claimed that invading Iraq was motivated by 9/11 in the first place. Why "walk back" something you had never said?
...nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'...
Come on now, you're calling Jimmy Carter conservative??
-
I say again: The United States knew exactly what Weapons Saddam did and did not have ... because ... The United States gave them to him back in the 1980's to use against Iran!
-
Iowa Hawk:
appletart2:
I do not believe the UN voted unanimously to go to war...
It doesn't matter what you want to believe, Apples. That won't change what happened. We're talking about the UN Security Council and they voted unanimously in favor of the resolution. Sorry.
but did they truly understand what they were voting for? "The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force" didn't workout that way did it? Also the division of Iraq oil was already divided up, in writing, a year before we went to war...giving Iraq a 14 % share of their oil and giving the rest to the 4 or 5 large oil companies. But it was about WMD.
-
appletart2:
Iowa Hawk:
appletart2:
I do not believe the UN voted unanimously to go to war...
It doesn't matter what you want to believe, Apples. That won't change what happened. We're talking about the UN Security Council and they voted unanimously in favor of the resolution. Sorry.
but did they truly understand what they were voting for? "The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force" didn't workout that way did it? Also the division of Iraq oil was already divided up, in writing, a year before we went to war...giving Iraq a 14 % share of their oil and giving the rest to the 4 or 5 large oil companies. But it was about WMD.
^^^The Deal is this - The investigating team agreed that Saddam/Iraq was not in compliance with the resolution...it doesn't matter whether they agreed (or not) that the areas of noncompliance was deserving of war. That wasn't their job. And with someone that dangerous, I don't don't care of the non compliance was clerical in nature to where they forgot to cross a 't' or dot and 'i'. Secondly, regardless of who said what in the game of 'he said, she said', they found old gun/missle shells with mustard gas residue during these inspections...Mustard gas = WMD...I don't care how the left (or anyone else for that matter) spun it later on...so now the world believes since there were no nuclear warheads found, then there were no WMDs found
-
Why didn't Bush take Saddam out like Obama took out both Libya leader and Bin Ladin..Bush and his cronies just wanted profits off the war and to drive up oil prices. 1972 when Saddam kicked out the foreign oil company is when america started stirring up trouble in Iraq. Don't forget Bush Sr caused the death of 10,000 Kurds.
-
appletart2:
Why didn't Bush take Saddam out like Obama took out both Libya leader and Bin Ladin..Bush and his cronies just wanted profits off the war and to drive up oil prices. 1972 when Saddam kicked out the foreign oil company is when america started stirring up trouble in Iraq. Don't forget Bush Sr caused the death of 10,000 Kurds.
Not sure what you mean - Obama (if you think he was really involved) 'handled' Gadaffi the way he (disingenuously) accused Bush of doing with Saddam...To me, they both deserved brutal endings to their lives - but if anything (and to a fault), Bush actually acted half humane about it and gave the man his day in court while Obama's team acted like a lynch mob....regarding Osama, that's Bush's kill even though he was gone from office already...it was his team and his stragedy, which was implemented prior to Bush's departure and was - ironically - heavily criticized by Obama (Obama should send Bush a card and flowers if he's so lucky to be reelected as president)
-
Iowa Hawk:
service_gamer:
Okay, so we have U.N. weapons inspector disagreeing with the reasons for war and the Bush administration admitting that the intelligence that led to the war was flawed. If you want to argue that 'Gee, we probably shouldn't have gone in, but maybe it wasn't so bad that we got Saddam out' I can at least respect your argument. But when by any objective measure the facts state that the Bush administration acted defiantly in invading Iraq and based its actions on, at best, flawed intelligence and, at worst, fabricated intelligence, defending the war on the merits of some compliance issues is absurd. Arguing that the Bush administration meant the most broad-reaching definition of WMDs is ridiculous; they painted Iraq as a regime on the cusp of possessing nuclear warheads. You can confirm this by a simple Google News search covering the buildup to the war and the early days of fighting, and you can confirm that the administration not only used nuclear scare tactics, but also took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to lead us into Iraq. Why else would President Bush hold a press conference to admit that Iraq didn't possess WMDs and also had nothing to do with 9/11? If the motives for going to war were as pure as you say they were, why would he bring up and concede such points?
It?s interesting that your wrath is so?one directional. All George Bush did was pick up where his predecessors left off, yet you seem to think he is the one who contrived some make-believe threat from Hussein. Why no indignation directed at the other saber rattlers? ?If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction program.? President Clinton, 2/17/98 ?He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.? Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, 2/18/98 ?Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.? Madeline Albright, Secretary of State for President Clinton, 11/10/99 ?We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq?s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.? Al Gore, 9/23/02 ?We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.? Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), 9/27/02 ?He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.? Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 10/10/02 ?In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.? Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), 10/10/02 ?I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.? Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), 10/9/02 And on and on and on. There is so much more where that came from, but I?ll spare you the cut-and-paste. You think all these people were credible but not George Bush? He had the support of not only the UN, but of the United States Congress, including prominent Democrats. Do you think Bush had his own private source of intelligence that contradicted what everyone else knew? Leaders world-wide said the same thing about Hussein and his weapons, but only George Bush, alone, knew that there were no such weapons, right? Is that your point? Your comment about Bush saying at a press conference that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 sounds more like an answer to a question posed to him from a reporter, since he had never claimed that invading Iraq was motivated by 9/11 in the first place. Why "walk back" something you had never said?
...nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'...
Come on now, you're calling Jimmy Carter conservative??
It's interesting that your response is so...afraid to tackle the issues that I brought up head-on. First, I'm (correctly) placing the blame at the feet of the Bush administration, not simply George W. Bush. And picking up where his predecessors left off? No, predecessor; his father. Your quotes from Clinton and officials from his administration are a nice distraction, but since the Clinton administration never invaded the country under false pretenses, they are irrelevant. The quotes you provided from various democrats circa-2002 are also irrelevant, because of the whole, y'know, being (at best) given the wrong info or (at worst) fed misinformation. This also undermines your point that he had support of prominent democrats, because again they supported the war on the basis of information that turned out not to be true (of course, in your defense, this fact is lost on an embarrassing number of Americans; see: John Kerry "the flip-flopper" from 2004). Also, your assertion that the U.N. supported the war is totally false. And making a vague note of worldwide leaders touting similar WMD intelligence conveniently neglects the horde of countries that vehemently protested the war. Finally, you claim that George Bush never linked Iraq to 9/11. While technically this is true, it's pretty naive to actually believe that the administration wasn't trying to create this link. To believe this, one has to be completely ignorant of such concepts as framing a message via the media. One also has to believe it to be a mere coincidence that President Bush's public addresses on the matter in the lead-up to and the immediate aftermath of the invasion would repeatedly include references to Hussein and 9/11, often in the same sentence. One also has to believe it to be a coincidence that the rise of polling data showing nearly half of Americans erroneously believing that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 coincided with U.S. involvement in Iraq. True, President Bush didn't have to "walk back" something he never said, but read between the lines; the question was asked and answered chiefly because of the administrations implications of Hussein's involvement in 9/11. Oh, and touche on Jimmy Carter
-
mustangsally10:
The Iraq war has left us with a much bigger problem. Saddam Hussein, was Iran's greatest enemy, because of that Tehran's influence in Iraq is much stronger today than is America's. Iran does not control Iraq but Tehran no longer has anything to fear from its western neighbor now that a Shia-dominated government sits in Baghdad, made up of parties whose leaders spent long years of exile in Iran under Saddam . The Iraq war was a debacle we will be paying for for decades.
I agree with a lot of what Sally says (did hell freeze over this week??). There certainly was a neutralizing effect when Saddam Hussein was in power, helping to keep Iran subdued. Debacle? I think that remains to be seen, and it may be very hard to quantify the effect of the war down the road, considering the way things seem to be coming undone far and wide in the Middle East since the beginning of this year.
-
Is this an archive site from 2003? Are Americans arguing about WMDs of a dead dictator? If I were in your place I would be most concerned about jobs today.
rich n:
Face it, President Obama is a failure - epic style...anyone (even another Dem, if push came to shove) would be better than this failure. But I don't see that happening since going back to the beginning of the electoral vote, there has never been a new president from the same party voted in to replace a one term president (only in the cases of impeachments or assasinations has that occurred)
What about Pierce? His party denied him the nomination after only one term. Grant served two terms, but he wanted a third and his party said no. Even though Obama never single-handedly saved the world as some of his supporters seem to have expected, can it really be true that anyone would be a better replacement? Republicans: Would you vote for Michael Moore over Obama? Democrats: Would you vote for Sarah Palin over Bush?
-
Did anybody besides me see those clowns Scarborough, Barnicle and Ford slandering the Oakland police the other day? I guess that's what we should expect from msnbc And then mayor Quan, instead of sticking up for the police for doing their job, goes on tv and folds like a marzipan dildo. Disgraceful.
-
EADG:
Did anybody besides me see those clowns Scarborough, Barnicle and Ford slandering the Oakland police the other day? I guess that's what we should expect from msnbc And then mayor Quan, instead of sticking up for the police for doing their job, goes on tv and folds like a marzipan dildo. Disgraceful.
If the shitty shoe fits...
-
al Sabah:
Even though Obama never single-handedly saved the world as some of his supporters seem to have expected, can it really be true that anyone would be a better replacement?
Obama is doing perfectly fine. ...and dealing with 20 years of Republicans...and 12 years of Democrats...out of the most recent 5 Presidents.
-
A Rocky Mountain "NO!!!" to Tax Hikes 11/1/2011 If 2008 was an election for change, tonight was an election for no change ? with Colorado voters rejecting tax hikes, ballot initiatives and refusing to overhaul school boards. Voters resoundingly shot down the only statewide ballot measure, which would have raised taxes for nearly $3 billion in school funding. http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_19245045
-
Occupy Seattle surrounded the Sheridan hotel where Jamie Dimon was staying. Police put up chain link fence and pepper spray crowd. And I though we only had police security for dignitaries. Who knew Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase has such connectioning
: