| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
<West`> it was never that big of a problem before, and when clinton bombed them they bombed anti aircraft radar stations that iraq was building from parts received from china, not for wmd...
<madsage> i'm not going to enlighten you idiots
<Lithium-> bmc: you should read about the cheney/cia battle over the "intelligence"
<Glock21> Clinton and the dems talked about the threat of Saddam's WMDs quite a bit in 1998.
<Disbelief> madsage - hahah
<Glock21> That was why they wanted the inspectors in back then.
<madsage> fact is 87% of congress including democtrats, as well as 30 other countries signed onto the invasion of iraq.
<Disbelief> madsage - thanks. none of us really think you have anything of substance to contribute anyway.
<RustyFord> i have quotes from Pelosi, CLinton, Gore, Hillary, bunch of dems if you would like
<bmc> clinton stated is was US policy to move for regime change in iraq
<bmc> ourtight
<bmc> outright*
<Disbelief> madsage - and? that somehow makes it legitimate ?
<Glock21> Clinton and Bush were both right on Iraq... without proof of their destruction, we had to ***ume Iraq still had them.
<West`> yes inspectors, no one (including congress) was going to war with iraq because of wmd during that period, it wasnt just clinton.
<Lithium-> bmc: regime change NOT by us
<Lithium-> god
<Lithium-> idiots
<Disbelief> glock21 - yes, because blind ***umptions are always intelligent. please.
<Glock21> Some people call that "blaming" Clinton, but I think Clinton was right on the money too.
<Lithium-> dont even read the full thing
<bmc> Lithium- he didnt say that
<panini> euros hate Halloween because it's "too American"
<Lithium-> bmc: yes he did
<bmc> lies
<hirogen> dum question if they had wmd, surely no one would have the bollocks to attack them then?
<Glock21> Disbelief... not blind ***umptions. They had them, and they never proved they destroyed them.
<Lithium-> bmc: read the resolution he sponsored
<hans_kung> Didn't Clinton get into hot water whenever he tried to take care of Saddam? Weren't there Republicans saying he was just doing that to get focus off his legal issues?
<Glock21> Believing they didn't exist required the ***umption.
<Lithium-> bmc: regime change via supporting iraqis to rebel, NOT invasion
<DeDannan> the wheels on the bus go round and round..round and round..round and round
<Glock21> DeDannan... heh, indeed.
<madsage> well i tell you what is legitimate, my sister having golf war syndrome from saddams scud chemical attacks, and that per his treaty he would destroy these and show the proof, which he never did. it was never our burden to prove what he did with them, it was his.. and he never followed through...
<hans_kung> Coffee. Caf or DeCaf. Discuss.
<West`> hirogen of course not, look at iran and north korea, much harder military threats, surely more of a threat, and we sit on our hands so to speak.
<DeDannan> Coke is better than Pepsi
<hans_kung> <==loves Cherry Coke
<Lithium-> madsage: there's a good reason to invade, your sister!
<DeDannan> McDonald's is better than Burger King
<hans_kung> <==loves it more when you find a 7=11 that has it on their fountain
<RustyFord> "He will use those weapons of m*** destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
<RustyFord> Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
<Disbelief> Glock21 - sigh. c'mon man. you're too smart to keep buying into this bull****. i know you. i KNOW you realize that the WMD was a complete canard that was ONCE a real issue, but had since become a non-issue...that the administration ressurected because it had the most political punch. You debase yourself when you continue to make philosphical arguements based on the WMD.
<CometBaby> I love diet coke :)
<madsage> Lithium-, there is many reason saddam neede taken out.
<madsage> needed
<CometBaby> hi all ;)
<Glock21> Disbelief... I didn't support the war based on WMD.
<RustyFord> howdy Comet
<madsage> i listed only a couple.
<CometBaby> hi rusty :)
<Lithium-> madsage: wmd were the main ones given to us though
<RustyFord> hows it going?
<Glock21> That was an issue for press value and manufacturing consent.
<hans_kung> yah me too...I add a little bit of regular coke to cheat a wee bit ;) I don't tell my doc though. <G>
<CometBaby> going great :)
<CometBaby> thx
<West`> madsage sure there were, and so was the real reason we went there, to have the heart of the arab world, to be able to poke syria, iran, infulence saudi.
<RustyFord> =)
<madsage> Lithium-, yes that is how it was sold to the american people
<bmc> Among the most hawkish, current Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle: "we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." In addition, there was wide support for the congressional resolution calling on "the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of m*** destruction programs."
<Lithium-> madsage: at least you admit THAT
<Lithium-> phew
<Disbelief> Glock21 - what was your personal basis for supporting the war, while acknowledging that the WMD argument was a non-starter designed for domestic coercion ?
<West`> But of course that reason wouldnt have sold, so ***ed up wmd made it into every speech for a year.
<madsage> that doesnt make the action wrong, that makes the PR wrong.
<DeDannan> the aspartame in diet soft drinks converts to formaldehyde in the body...I'll take my chances with high-fructose corn syrup :)
<bmc> The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
<madsage> and i dont beleieve Bush lied, i think like the rest of the world intelligence, saddam did have WMD.
<Disbelief> West` - and that's an understatement. "Mushroom cloud over an american city" anyone ?
<Disbelief> madsage - haha.
<Disbelief> sure thing.
<madsage> and so did Kerry
<Glock21> Disbelief... same reason for supporting the no-fly zones... same reason for supporting the bombing campaign in 1998... same reason we never left the region in the first place. To enforce the ceasefire agreement when the UN failed to make any headway in doing it diplomatically.
<West`> I have never said the action was wrong, you can find logs of me in here in 02 and 03 defending the war. But i think the weapons were tottally spiced up for a sales point.
<madsage> and Hillary and Kennedy and Daschle
<bmc> In 1998, 18 prominent conservatives wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to "aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
<madsage> and all the rest of these big liberals, also urged Clinton and Bush to take action.
<madsage> Clinton never did, he was too worrried about what the arabs would think.
<madsage> hence why he let Osama go twice
<Disbelief> Glock21 - if it were a matter of 'enforcing the ceasefire agreement' (which it was not), a fullscale invasion was perhaps the most costly and reckless way to do it. You're making legalistic arguments that the administration itself did not pull, because even its lawyers knew there was no case to be made on the ceasefire agreement.
<madsage> if anybody could have prevented 911, take a guess..
<West`> bmc and as i said, congress would have never p***ed it (going to war with iraq in 98), even if that were 18 senators sending the letter, that leaves a lot to be desired.
<Glock21> My reasoning for supporting it differs from the public reasoning the administration gave that was mostly to get public support.
<Glock21> The real reason the admin did it is known only to the admin.
<hirogen> glock21? whats ur reason
<bmc> One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of m*** destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. - WJC
<madsage> glock21, agreed.. even though he didnt need it
<Glock21> The public reasoning, like all public reasoning is strictly for public support.
<Glock21> It's politics, not truth-itics
<madsage> congress had been urging CLinton to take action, prior to Bush
<madsage> so how does this make it a Bush lie?
<Glock21> I think Clinton took appropriate actions for the time and situation.
<madsage> heh
<Disbelief> Glock21 - fair enough. but your reasoning is based on rule of law, which, presumably, would be legitimate and sound. The reason the administration didn't base its argumetn on that, is that there's no way to use the Gulf War ceasefire agreement to justify a full-scale invasion of Iraq, 12 years later.
<Glock21> Though some were pushing for an invasion it would have been hard to muster public support for it.
<bud``> hello. just got in, any indictments as promised?
<Disbelief> bud - not yet.
<madsage> well failrly enough, our mentality was just issue indictments and arrest warrents for these terrorist
<Disbelief> stay tuned
<madsage> fact is that has been going on for 35years, 60 some terrorists acts.
<Glock21> Disbelief... I don't care if I disagree with the administration's "sales pitch" for war. I had my own reasons to support it. I'm just glad they did it and were able to get enough public support to do it.
<hirogen> i think its cos iraq was on boarder line becoming a 1st world country, they were a threat to Israel and the oil factor of course, strategic location too
<madsage> including 4 times against America
<bmc> http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
<madsage> strategic location yes
<daglo> Hi there friends!!!
<Glock21> I wish they had gone about it a bit differently to get the public support because they kind of shot themselves in the foot focusing on the wmds so much and letting the media focus solely on the wmd threat.
<West`> 35 years, i thought it was clinton with his horrible foreign policy that created our terrorist threat. Couldnt be 35years ago. with that logic.
<madsage> oil, possibly.. ensuring our energy supply by having some says so at the table of an OPEC supplier does help.
<Disbelief> Glock21 - but your reasons, unfortunately, don't hold water. IF they did, the administraiton would have had a completely legitimate means to initiate hostilities, AND be able to show indisputable legal reasons to the american people.
<madsage> we dont hold this OPEC card however, we do want friendly relations with the holder however.. the iraqi people
<Glock21> Disbelief... my reasoning doesn't sit well with international law... and I'm fine with that.
<hans_kung> YAY
<Glock21> We've been defying international law with our military actions against Iraq ever since we took the step to enforce the ceasefire agreement personally in 1991.
<madsage> energy is part of our national security
<madsage> and as such an interest to any president
<Glock21> The international community usually supported us ex post facto.
<Disbelief> Glock21 - the Bush administration employs dozens of lawyers to investigate these options. I'm sure it was considered. the fact that this strategy wan't persued tells me that they knew full well that this line of reasoning wasn't possible to reach the conclusion of invasion. And no, its not just about international law. The US' position in the ceasefire agreement -- its own obligations -- prevented it from simply invading iraq wholesale to
<Glock21> Disbelief... it doesn't make a good "sales pitch" to the dunderheads of the voting public.
<Glock21> Scary wmds do.
<madsage> hell saddam was attacking the Kurds 3 months after his traty
<madsage> treaty
<Glock21> If you have to do the right thing, and you have to get the public behind you, you HAVE to dumb down your sales pitch to get the public to allow you to do the right thing.
<Disbelief> Glock21 - well i guess thats where you and i differ. when its a matter of war, i want a president with integrity and reasons, not a sales pitch based on lies.
<madsage> Disbelief, they were not lies
<DarthBurg> what lies?
<Disbelief> Bush perhaps COULD have made a legitimate case for military action in iraq. he took the easy road instead.
<Glock21> Most people couldn't find Iraq on a map, let alone understand the political, historical, economic, and military issues necessary to make a competent decision on whether we should go to war.
<Disbelief> and obviously, he's now reaping the consequences of that choice.
<madsage> saddam did have WMD, and it was his burden of proof to destroy them, which he never did.
<Glock21> The public reasoning always has to be dumbed down, simplified, and picked through for the best effect.
<madsage> where do you get the idea that is a lie?
<Disbelief> to be fair, it wasn't him alone. the cabal of neocons surrounding him were responsible. but the buck stops with him.
<madsage> where do you get the idea that is a lie?
<madsage> moveon.org?
<madsage> heh
<Lithium-> madsage: where did they go?
<Lithium-> they were everywhere!
<West`> Glock21 so we should tailor to the lowest denomenator?
<Lithium-> east west south and north baghdad and around tikrit!
<Glock21> Disbelief... yeah, the wmd stuff blew up in their faces, but they still were able to get in there and do it.
<madsage> dude, thats not the point, syria maybe? maybe he did destroy them, but is was still his burden to prove that.
<Disbelief> madsage - it was entirely a lie to suggest that if the US didn't act there could be a "mushroom cloud over an american city" as prominent members of the administration said several times.
<Glock21> So far the public has been pissy about it, but they haven't forced a withdrawal yet, thank god.
<Lithium-> madsage: oh so maybe he didnt have them, maybe we should've let the inspectors do their work?
<madsage> not out burden to prove they existed, that was never in doubt!
<Glock21> It's been ugly, but not quite *that* ugly yet.
<madsage> saddam kicked the inspectors out like 4 times?
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
myfreepaysite.com
acer wifi light blink
percing in Iasi
|
|