The ..2012.... Political thread
-
mustangsally10:
... Basically the bush administration took advantage of the after shock of 9/11 to start an unnecessary illegal war by lying about the reasons. that's it in a nutshell...
Bless her heart, more fairy dust from the fertile imagination of our Sally. I'm no fan of the UN, but that resolution received a unanimous vote from the Security Council. (Sally, that means all of the members voted in favor of it. It wasn't only George Bush who decided to invade.) What do you mean by "illegal" and by "lying"? Please explain, and try to be coherent. And don't repeat that tired line about no WMDs. We know Hussein had WMDs. Do you know how we know, in addition to all the available intelligence? We know because HE USED THEM. Did you know that, Sally? Read it again - Hussein USED weapons of mass destruction, and he never did account for getting rid of them as required by multiple UN resolutions.
-
That is true I agree with that analogy. What I am concerned about is the turn all this is taken. I noticed that the hate mongers seem to be coming out of the woodwork and seem to be trying to shove their viewpoint publically down others throats. It is really distasteful. love doris
-
keithmestl:
mustangsally10:
... Basically the bush administration took advantage of the after shock of 9/11 to start an unnecessary illegal war by lying about the reasons. that's it in a nutshell...
Bless her heart, more fairy dust from the fertile imagination of our Sally. I'm no fan of the UN, but that resolution received a unanimous vote from the Security Council. (Sally, that means all of the members voted in favor of it. It wasn't only George Bush who decided to invade.) What do you mean by "illegal" and by "lying"? Please explain, and try to be coherent. And don't repeat that tired line about no WMDs. We know Hussein had WMDs. Do you know how we know, in addition to all the available intelligence? We know because HE USED THEM. Did you know that, Sally? Read it again - Hussein USED weapons of mass destruction, and he never did account for getting rid of them as required by multiple UN resolutions.
Aww - take it easy on her...She probably doesn't know what a WMD actually is (probably, like many misinformed people out there) and believe it strictly means nuclear weapons, and doesn't understand that it's a blanket title for anything that can killed a large mass of people in a short period of time (i.e chemical warfare for example - can anyone say 'extermination of many thousands of Kurds' - of course at the hands of Saddam Hussein?)...and as you alluded to, the focus was always on how we never found their stock of these weapons, but never on the question of where did they go or how were they disposed of. Part of the resolution was that they disclosed where/how these weapons were disposed of and this was never done.
-
The hate mongers are coming out now because they are running scared. They are rehashing old arguments and being personally nasty and rude. The reason is because President Obama is having success in many areas and he and his team are exposing the hypocrisy of the republican party. As President FDR said:
I welcome their hatred"
So I welcome their hatred too it just means they are seeing defeat. So Bring it On. There is a direct relationship between their nastiness and President Obama's success. Their team of candidates looks dismal and it's fun to think of the debates ahead when Obama gets to debate one of them directly. Make the popcorn So let's have fun watching their heads explode
-
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)
-
mustangsally10:
rich n:
mustangsally10:
rich n:
mustangsally10:
If you read Daily Kos you might be as informed as I am.... Obama Quote:
"The United States is committed to the Libyan people. You have won your revolution." 11:11 AM PT: President Obama also recognizes the Americans and their families who were killed in attacks plotted by Gadhafi. 11:13 AM PT: President Obama says the NATO mission is now coming to an end. More broadly, he also says "We've taken out Al Qaeda leaders and put them on the path to defeat." We're "winding down" the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's leadership
I what do you think Obama was thinking when he was shaking his hand...I'm going to get you..sucker and he did
I'm actually a little surprised that you would want Obama to get credit for this given it was a cold blooded kill of a head of state w/o the benefit of a trial - while at the same time, you criticized Bush for his handling of Saddam (who was basically the same type of ruthless murderer Gadaffi was), despite Saddam being fairly tried in a court of law...the hypocracy is hilarious...
bush's excuse to kill Saddam and invade Iraq was 9/11...Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11...do you get that now? When the US invaded Iraq bush said we would be greeted as liberators they fought us instead. that is why the war was so difficult and long. The Libyan people were in revolution against gaddafi and he was brutalizing them and they caught and killed him with a little help from their friends. They are now free and on their own unless they ask for help. Our mission there is over. The adults are in charge.
Amen. Now we know who the real uniter-not-a-divider is.
-
mustangsally10:
The hate mongers are coming out now because they are running scared...
What does that mean? You like to dish it, but you don't expect anyone to reply in kind?
... Make the popcorn
Right on!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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