Current Administration (be prepared-not holding anything back)

Iwant8,

Thanks for reading that post. I usually hate writing anything remotely complete, because it involves so much time for me, and for the reader. I think most guys are loath to read a post, if they see how long it is.

>I however do believe that we were lied to and the intent was a bit less innocent than most would believe.<

I do not see how we could have been. All of the information was there, even classified material, for each member of Congress to review. Set up in a secure room in the Capital. Few took the opportunity. They voted overwhelmingly to allow Bush to use military force.

You cannot call faulty intel a lie, concerning stockpiles of WMD. It was Clinton appointed CIA chief, Tenet, that said stockpiles of WMD was a "slam dunk".

The guy that everyone turned to, and quoted so heavily, concerning WMD, David Kay, has said repeatedly, that even without stockpiles of WMD, Saddam was more of a threat than we had previously supposed. He had the knowledge (scientists), the means, and obviously the intent, to produce more WMD. Otherwise he would have completly destroyed his WMD infrastructure as the South Africans did their nuclear program. What do you think his WMD scientists were working on? They surely have had no logical answers.

As I have said without refute before, the lack of stockpiles made no difference whatsoever. Saddam was a proven, PROVEN entity. Everyfuckingone in the entire world, that had access to any news whatsoever, knew what he was. To say removing him was questionable, that he was not a significant threat, is absurd. It should have been done many years ago, in '91 to be exact.

That he would have been removed by any other manner than force is laughable. And it was no secret that Bush was referring to regime change before the war. He made it clear that the reason for military action was to remove Saddam, and gave him the opportunity to leave peaceably. There was absolutely no deception.

>There is something of note that John Conyers and many others are taking part in right now about the very decisions and intent prior to the invasion. It should be the number one story right now, but I don't know if it is. CNN.com doesn't look like they care much about it. Their headline right now is about Ford automobiles while the Downing Street hearings that are going on right now are 4th in a link to the side. Priorities are not in order. This deserves more attention than the Jackson trial. I hate to say it but if the Jackson trial was going on still the hearings might not get mentioned. At least you can watch it on CNN.com though. I do not see it on Foxnews.com either. I think the same would hold true for television as well. It's almost over though so maybe there will be more on it in a few days. I doubt it.<

So you think anything unbiased, with any basis in fact, will come form John Conyers committee? Do you think this is in any way, anything other than partisan sniping? What are the odds? Why not access, and review the bald facts, without partisan influence?

>I've said the same about Kim on here as well. I think he has nuclear weapons, but is only using that possibility of a threat to barter with.<

No doubt.

>Saddam hasn't had any WMDs since the early 90s though.<

In fact, WMD has been found in Iraq. He still had the base stock, from which to produce biological weapons, as well as stores of chemical ingredients to make WMD. There have also been at least three howitzer shells found loaded with WMD, one of which was used in an IED, and exploded on a couple of US servicemen.

Further, neither Saddam, nor you, can prove he did not have WMD, since "the early 90's". He did not display, or prove there destruction at any time, as he was supposed to, nor did he ever provide, nor has there ever been found, forensic evidence of their destruction. A couple good questions concerning this topic is, why did he have newly purchased WMD protection apparati, if Iraq did not have WMD? I have heard Saddam's government feared US use of WMD. Yeah, that makes sense. Why were the Iraqi WMD dispursment teams still intact, if there were no WMD?

Just a couple, but there are many more logical questions about Saddam's WMD programs that have not been answered. Odd that more people are not calling for these questions to be answered. Easier to attack Bush I guess.

>I think the UN inspections worked. I feel like if a guy who was the CEO of a pharmaceutical company sells biological and chemical materials to a country that just used bio and chemical weapons on a country who ends up being the Sec. of Defense (Rumsfeld) of the country that eventually accuses them of being an evil regime and invades on the premise of self defense along with referring to history of human rights cruelty that it assisted in is pretty fucked. It doesn't make any difference if you see nothing wrong with that. You should see something wrong with that.<

Uh, huh?

>It is clear that no WMDs have been found, which was the key to this whole invasion.<

Well, specifically to be redundant, as described above, you are wrong on both counts.

>There is strong evidence in real documents that suggest the invasion was to act as a coup, which you've acknowledged and is pretty widely known that it was Bush and company who believed it was necessary for a regime change in Iraq.<

Yessir, dead on, perfect. No doubt Bush, and almost every other inhabitant of earth, wanted Saddam, or rather the entire Bathist regime removed. He and many others said it.

>There is strong evidence that suggests the administration had planned invade Iraq for at least 3 years prior to the 2003 invasion,<

Actually, invasion plans were drawn up, and redrawn several times, even during the Clinton administration, from '91 on. No secrets there. Everyone wanted Saddam gone.

>that the information was manipulated in that Iraq was less of a threat than several other countries, Saddam's terrorist links were not even close to provable.<

Man, I just have no idea. I am completely hoodwinked. I though Al Zarquawi, other Al Queda, as well as other terrorists, WERE in Iraq, and that there were even terrorist training camps found and confirmed in Iraq. The Chechs and other intel organizations really fooled me with all of their information concerning Saddam and Al Queda.

>PNAC should ring a bell when it comes to Iraq and considering the people involved with that organization it should be alarming that people with that mentality are in such positions of influence that are strategic and elemental to the American policies they wanted to control in an imperialist way.<

Once again, where in the world are we amassing this US empire? Conspiracies concerning US aims have been around for over a century. South America, Panama, the Philipines, Korea, southeast Asia, Mexico, Cuba, etc, etc, etc. Iraq will be like every other country the US has ever been involved in. When the government asks us to stay, we might stay. When they ask us to leave, we leave.

When the stated aims are met, when Iraq is able to protect herself, the US will leave. Then, some other conspiracy will come along to amuse us. Will the joy and fun never end? Let's hope not. I can't wait to here how we are going to steal Iraq's oil. That was the real reason for the war, doncha know.

>On another note, I didn't mean that the Iraq government was a puppet regime, as I would have only speculation on my side, but I was saying the Iraqis see the violence occurring everyday and they know it's because the U.S. is there.<

Nope. The consensus seems to be falling against the insurgents. The Iraqi people see what is happening, and each day appear to be turning in insurgency cells, doing what they can to get rid of the trouble makers. They do not seem to be turning against the US troops. In fact, they seem to be siding with them.

They appear to know the fight will be there whether the US is in country or not. The violent, minority Sunnis, must be confronted by the peaceful Shites. It is easier to do it with US help, than without. This is becoming plainer by the day. As always, coming events will make everything clear, till revisionists get involved.

>What are they supposed to believe in a time of hopelessness? This invasion will only result with more terrorism years down the road, but the only thing I can hope for realistically is the people will see that it was our foreign policy that has contributed greatly to this terrorism.<

Nope, this invasion will lead to democracy in Iraq. It will be hard to put the freedom of self determination back in the bottle. It will also help lead to freedom in other countries. Eventually, this one act alone, could well result in freedom for not only the 75 million freed so far, but far more.

One fact cannot be debated: A free democratic people is a more peaceful people. And this democratic freedom allows us to have this debate, rather than have our tongues cut out, or our hands cut off. Let us all wish this free existance for all the people of the world.

Bigger
 
Boy, I could swear our former Chief Inspector David Kay said in 04 that at the time of the invasion Iraq had no such weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6995-2004Feb2&notFound=true

And as recently as April of THIS year there is nothing that suggests the justifications given for the invasion were true other than Saddam was evil. You should have known Kay was appeasing to the President when he made those claims about the underestimating of Iraq's imminent threat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
Your warranted theory considering the total history of Saddam and Syria cannot be ruled out of possibility, however what has been found is not anything close to what Kay had previously suggested.

I know that the sarin and I forget what the other material was found to be from around the early 90s. Saddam used bio and chemical weapons on his own people. The Kurds were fighting the Iraqi army because of their history of oppression with the Iraqi citizens. When the Kurds were killed 4 decades back it somehow didn't matter and was somehow irrelevant still when the U.S. backed Saddam in the 80s. Then Kuwait was invaded and human rights violations were suddenly a major problem so much so that the U.S. had been meaning to take care of it just as soon as Saddam went that extra evil mile and invaded a very rich and resourceful country who had been protected by a country that had been underfire by the Iranians, Saddam and its own people at some point within that period. (Saudi Arabia)
 
Iwant8,

Thanks, your links made each and every point that I was trying to make. The last link (Duelfer's report) is very interesting, and a truly great resource for anyone interested in the complete story of Saddam's rule in Iraq. Magnificent. Previously, I did not touch on the illegal delivery systems Saddam was working on. Thanks for that.

>Boy, I could swear our former Chief Inspector David Kay said in 04 that at the time of the invasion Iraq had no such weapons.<

And that is EXACTLY what I said. While the left took his dramatic and forceful statements that Iraq had no stockpiles, they completely ignored, or pooh-poohed his statements about how dangerous Saddam actually was. In fact, you did the same thing above.

>And as recently as April of THIS year there is nothing that suggests the justifications given for the invasion were true other than Saddam was evil. You should have known Kay was appeasing to the President when he made those claims about the underestimating of Iraq's imminent threat.<

Then, either you have not read your own links, or you just don't care. It appears for you, Bush was wrong, and lied, and that's it, facts be damned. You wish to pick and choose through David Kay's comments, claiming that when you don't agree with him, he was, "appeasing to the President when he made those claims about the underestimating of Iraq's imminent threat". Now, that is just sad, and not honest.

Actually read Duelfer's report, and there is only one conclusion anyone can come to from that avalanche of evidence: Saddam was a tremendous threat. You gave the link that provides all the evidence.

>Your warranted theory considering the total history of Saddam and Syria cannot be ruled out of possibility, however what has been found is not anything close to what Kay had previously suggested.<

I do not know what this means, what theory you are referring to, and do not know what suggestions by David Kay you mean.

>I know that the sarin and I forget what the other material was found to be from around the early 90s. Saddam used bio and chemical weapons on his own people. The Kurds were fighting the Iraqi army because of their history of oppression with the Iraqi citizens. When the Kurds were killed 4 decades back it somehow didn't matter and was somehow irrelevant still when the U.S. backed Saddam in the 80s.<

Four decades back? Check the facts. It is in Duelfer's report. Attacking the Kurds was considered irrelevant by the US? Wow. Check it please.

If you were attempting to list what Saddam did that was bad, or his involvement with WMD, there are many more instances, all found within your link.

>Then Kuwait was invaded and human rights violations were suddenly a major problem so much so that the U.S. had been meaning to take care of it just as soon as Saddam went that extra evil mile and invaded a very rich and resourceful country who had been protected by a country that had been underfire by the Iranians, Saddam and its own people at some point within that period. (Saudi Arabia)<

What in the hell does the above mean? Invading Kuwait, human rights violations. I just do not know what point you were trying to make.

You really should read all of Duelfer's report. It will clear up many of your misconceptions you wrote about above. In fact, it contains almost the enire history of Iraq under Saddam, and many interesting caveats that I was not aware of. I found it to be a most convincing arguement for removing Saddam, although that was not the original purpose.

Thanks again,

Bigger
 
The point is he was no longer the threat he once was at the time of the invasion. The main basis for the invasion was that he was an imminent threat to the U.S. And there was nothing found of significance that shows weapons were moved to Syria or another country. The possibility is there, but nothing has been found to indicate that is what happened. He wasn't an imminent threat to the U.S.
 
Originally posted by iwant8inches:
The point is he was no longer the threat he once was at the time of the invasion. The main basis for the invasion was that he was an imminent threat to the U.S. And there was nothing found of significance that shows weapons were moved to Syria or another country. The possibility is there, but nothing has been found to indicate that is what happened. He wasn't an imminent threat to the U.S.
Click to expand...

Imminent threats have a military infrastructure that is sustainable. In my opinion, war should never be entered, that is until all diplomatic options are exausted. It is unfair to the men and women of the armed services to have their sense of duty and obligation taken advantage of and used as pawns based on lies.
 
Iwant8,

We seem to be saying the exact same things, but putting different levels of import on what we are saying.

In the report by Duelfer, and according to David Kay, Saddam was ready to start his programs up again, as soon as the heat was off. How is this not a threat? Bush stated in the '02 SOTU address that we needed to address Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. He never said Saddam was an imminent threat at the time. And Bush was correct.

What difference could it have possibly made, to the security of the US and the rest of the world, if Saddam had weapons for immediate use, or produced and used them within a six month period? The problem was Saddam's intent. Both his firmly established intent to produce the weapons, and his obvious intent to use the weapons. Also, the distinct possibility that he would give the weapons to terrorist organizations, the possibilities of which he had explored. All of this was firmly established in your sited report.

Duelfer laid all of this out in perfect order. He showed exactly the reasons for Saddams removal, although that was not his aim.

Kal,

>Imminent threats have a military infrastructure that is sustainable. In my opinion, war should never be entered, that is until all diplomatic options are exausted. It is unfair to the men and women of the armed services to have their sense of duty and obligation taken advantage of and used as pawns based on lies.<

That God that you are not calling the shots. Throughout history, many millions of people have died because their leaders did not heed threats before they came to fruition. If you cannot see the threats in this case, then you have obviously not done your homework.

Bigger
 
Bib, we are both glad Saddam is out of power, but I disagree at this point that Saddam was or was going to be a threat to the U.S. and I do not believe every reason that was given for the invasion was on the level. That is what I expect of the government. If the case was so easy to make then why was it necessary to draw attention to the things Saddam had done in the past that was known by most people across the world? Why wasn't the whole Security Council and other countries not in favor of the invasion? Surely, their people's safety would be as much if not more in danger than the people here. I understand that Russia and France were among those that had other interests and "sympathies" to exploring all options and lifting the sanctions etc, but I still don't see how Saddam was as high a priority as the lurking terrorist networks. Maybe things get better in Iraq and I hope they do, but I don't think by removing Saddam Hussein it made a dent in the terrorism era we are living in. The invasion may turn out to be either what you say it will turn out to be in a peaceful manner for millions or the point of no return where terrorism become rampant and active in even our country. I don't see fighting the terrorists in Iraq as being the most humane way of doing things. Why should the rapture of the terrorists be fueled to the highest of flames at all in some arrogant attempt at getting them to burn themselves out? That will never work. Seriously though, don't ever think I'm anti-American. If I believe the men in charge of our country are helping to disgrace its honor and good name then it's my duty to say something and act on it in some way. I'll criticize and chant no more war till the troops come back home or till I'm blue in the face. Although hindsight is twenty twenty if the U.S. is still in Iraq in 07 or later it won't be because it's necessary to see things to the finish. It'll be because things aren't getting better. Good things are happening there even though they are few and far between, but it's not like the enemy has a face or a small number of people to call on to fight for their cause. It doesn't seem like there is an end in sight.
 
Iwant8,

>Bib, we are both glad Saddam is out of power, but I disagree at this point that Saddam was or was going to be a threat to the U.S. and I do not believe every reason that was given for the invasion was on the level. That is what I expect of the government.<

Then we can agree to disagree.

>If the case was so easy to make then why was it necessary to draw attention to the things Saddam had done in the past that was known by most people across the world?<

Huh? You mean, ignore what Saddam had proven himself to be? Why would anyone do that?

>Why wasn't the whole Security Council and other countries not in favor of the invasion?<

For a time, they all surely were. Then, France, Germany, and Russia suddenly drew back, surprising the hell out of Colin Powell. Now, we find out money from the OFF, program, as well as other funds, was changing hands, making it's way into all of these countries. Very interesting. Then, there is the debt owed by Saddam to these countries, plus the business opportunities with Saddam.

If you read your Duelfer link fully, you will find many of the reasons these countries withdrew their support. It will be highly enlightening.

>Surely, their people's safety would be as much if not more in danger than the people here.<

No, these countries were becoming in fact, almost allies with Saddam. They had much less to fear because of these ties. Read your link.

>I understand that Russia and France were among those that had other interests and "sympathies" to exploring all options and lifting the sanctions etc, but I still don't see how Saddam was as high a priority as the lurking terrorist networks.<

I don't want to keep repeating myself, but the points are all extremely valid, that Saddam was a threat, for the near term, and especially for the future. The fact that inroads were made where he could link up with the terrorists, plus his blatent support for terrorists in Israel, made him too hot to allow to remain in power.

>Maybe things get better in Iraq and I hope they do, but I don't think by removing Saddam Hussein it made a dent in the terrorism era we are living in.<

We shall see. Once again, thankfully we will never know how BAD it could have become.

>The invasion may turn out to be either what you say it will turn out to be in a peaceful manner for millions or the point of no return where terrorism become rampant and active in even our country.<

So far, it is headed in the right direction.

>I don't see fighting the terrorists in Iraq as being the most humane way of doing things. Why should the rapture of the terrorists be fueled to the highest of flames at all in some arrogant attempt at getting them to burn themselves out? That will never work.<

Surely it will work. Remaining on the offensive will tend to bring out Wahhabists, and those inclined to wreck havoc. It may indeed draw more folks into the terrorist networks. But this is a self limiting thing.

The vast majority of Muslims simply want to live in peace, as we do. The vast majority of Muslims are highly opposed to the Wahhabi sect, and way of life. Especially the women. The problem until now is, all too often, going against the Wahhabists means certain death for them.

If you did as I suggested, and read about the Wahabbi sect, you know that these particular Muslims are very conservative, and are fighting against western CULTURE. It is our export of music, movies, clothes, religion; in fact, the entire western lifestyle that fuels this fight. For the near term, they wish the entire region, to return to a strict Islamic culture. Just look at the laws and rules set down by the Taliban for how they want all Muslims to live. Then for the mid term, they want all western influence out of the region. Then for the long term, they want the entire world to be Islamic.

Now, they have determined that not only do they wish all Muslims to be forced to live by their ideas of what a good Muslim should be; they have determined that the west, and the US in particular, must be attacked (jihad), and we devils defeated in order to cleanse the planet, and make the world totally Islamic. As infidels, we can either become like them, or die. Or we can fight. Those are our choices.

In order to reach the aims set out above, the Wahhabists have determined that the entire region must be returned to the political boundaries established under the Ottoman Empire, a pan-Islamic state. This will supposedly unite all Muslims in the world against the infidels. Funny, but Saddam actually had the same idea, with Saddam as ruler of the pan-Islamic state. Islam is the only major religion which came about from a political base under Mohammed. That is why politics and Islam are so closely linked in the Muslim world. It is also why they say Islam (a religion?) is the only political system they need, and Wahhabists (and others) are so afraid of democracy.

Yes, the fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan will surely bring out those most likely to try and force their beliefs on us. That is a good thing. Tends to draw obvious lines. But I, and most others believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, and essentially want the same things we do. Freedom. Freedom to live their lives in peace and as they want to, freedom to raise their children as they wish. And yes, free to live a western lifestyle if they wish.

As the tide continues to turn, many, if not most of the peaceful, freedom loving Muslims are turning against the tyrants. Saddam is surely unpopular. He is going to be tried, and could be found innocent. If so, I assume he could run for president of Iraq. I wonder how many votes he would get in a free and fair election?

How about the popularity of the Taliban? The Ayatollahs in Iran? The Saudi Royal family? You see, the will for freedom is already there. Freedom loving Muslims only need the opportunity, just levering the boot off their necks a bit, to be able to shed the shackles of tyranny. Hopefully, we are giving them that opportunity.

>Seriously though, don't ever think I'm anti-American.<

I do not think you are un-American. I think you might sometimes hate America, because you listen and believe poor sources. But then, you could also be right. I just don't think so.

>If I believe the men in charge of our country are helping to disgrace its honor and good name then it's my duty to say something and act on it in some way. I'll criticize and chant no more war till the troops come back home or till I'm blue in the face.<

You should do all you think you need to do. By all means. Just please always remember the servicemen and women that give you that right to be able to protest. Cause without them, you could have your tounge cut out; at least at some point in time, when the Wahhabists are calling the shots.

>Good things are happening there even though they are few and far between, but it's not like the enemy has a face or a small number of people to call on to fight for their cause. It doesn't seem like there is an end in sight.<

I do see the end. In fact recent events indicate to me the end is closer than I ever thought possible. I am referring above to Iraq and Afghanistan. There will still be problems to confront in these two countries, as well as other areas, for decades to come. But not nearly on the scale we see today.

Good stuff. I have enjoyed it.

Bigger
 
Bib said:
Iwant8,

>Bib, we are both glad Saddam is out of power, but I disagree at this point that Saddam was or was going to be a threat to the U.S. and I do not believe every reason that was given for the invasion was on the level. That is what I expect of the government.<

Then we can agree to disagree.

>If the case was so easy to make then why was it necessary to draw attention to the things Saddam had done in the past that was known by most people across the world?<

Huh? You mean, ignore what Saddam had proven himself to be? Why would anyone do that?

>Why wasn't the whole Security Council and other countries not in favor of the invasion?<

For a time, they all surely were. Then, France, Germany, and Russia suddenly drew back, surprising the hell out of Colin Powell. Now, we find out money from the OFF, program, as well as other funds, was changing hands, making it's way into all of these countries. Very interesting. Then, there is the debt owed by Saddam to these countries, plus the business opportunities with Saddam.

If you read your Duelfer link fully, you will find many of the reasons these countries withdrew their support. It will be highly enlightening.

>Surely, their people's safety would be as much if not more in danger than the people here.<

No, these countries were becoming in fact, almost allies with Saddam. They had much less to fear because of these ties. Read your link.

>I understand that Russia and France were among those that had other interests and "sympathies" to exploring all options and lifting the sanctions etc, but I still don't see how Saddam was as high a priority as the lurking terrorist networks.<

I don't want to keep repeating myself, but the points are all extremely valid, that Saddam was a threat, for the near term, and especially for the future. The fact that inroads were made where he could link up with the terrorists, plus his blatent support for terrorists in Israel, made him too hot to allow to remain in power.

>Maybe things get better in Iraq and I hope they do, but I don't think by removing Saddam Hussein it made a dent in the terrorism era we are living in.<

We shall see. Once again, thankfully we will never know how BAD it could have become.

>The invasion may turn out to be either what you say it will turn out to be in a peaceful manner for millions or the point of no return where terrorism become rampant and active in even our country.<

So far, it is headed in the right direction.

>I don't see fighting the terrorists in Iraq as being the most humane way of doing things. Why should the rapture of the terrorists be fueled to the highest of flames at all in some arrogant attempt at getting them to burn themselves out? That will never work.<

Surely it will work. Remaining on the offensive will tend to bring out Wahhabists, and those inclined to wreck havoc. It may indeed draw more folks into the terrorist networks. But this is a self limiting thing.

The vast majority of Muslims simply want to live in peace, as we do. The vast majority of Muslims are highly opposed to the Wahhabi sect, and way of life. Especially the women. The problem until now is, all too often, going against the Wahhabists means certain death for them.

If you did as I suggested, and read about the Wahabbi sect, you know that these particular Muslims are very conservative, and are fighting against western CULTURE. It is our export of music, movies, clothes, religion; in fact, the entire western lifestyle that fuels this fight. For the near term, they wish the entire region, to return to a strict Islamic culture. Just look at the laws and rules set down by the Taliban for how they want all Muslims to live. Then for the mid term, they want all western influence out of the region. Then for the long term, they want the entire world to be Islamic.

Now, they have determined that not only do they wish all Muslims to be forced to live by their ideas of what a good Muslim should be; they have determined that the west, and the US in particular, must be attacked (jihad), and we devils defeated in order to cleanse the planet, and make the world totally Islamic. As infidels, we can either become like them, or die. Or we can fight. Those are our choices.

In order to reach the aims set out above, the Wahhabists have determined that the entire region must be returned to the political boundaries established under the Ottoman Empire, a pan-Islamic state. This will supposedly unite all Muslims in the world against the infidels. Funny, but Saddam actually had the same idea, with Saddam as ruler of the pan-Islamic state. Islam is the only major religion which came about from a political base under Mohammed. That is why politics and Islam are so closely linked in the Muslim world. It is also why they say Islam (a religion?) is the only political system they need, and Wahhabists (and others) are so afraid of democracy.

Yes, the fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan will surely bring out those most likely to try and force their beliefs on us. That is a good thing. Tends to draw obvious lines. But I, and most others believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, and essentially want the same things we do. Freedom. Freedom to live their lives in peace and as they want to, freedom to raise their children as they wish. And yes, free to live a western lifestyle if they wish.

As the tide continues to turn, many, if not most of the peaceful, freedom loving Muslims are turning against the tyrants. Saddam is surely unpopular. He is going to be tried, and could be found innocent. If so, I assume he could run for president of Iraq. I wonder how many votes he would get in a free and fair election?

How about the popularity of the Taliban? The Ayatollahs in Iran? The Saudi Royal family? You see, the will for freedom is already there. Freedom loving Muslims only need the opportunity, just levering the boot off their necks a bit, to be able to shed the shackles of tyranny. Hopefully, we are giving them that opportunity.

>Seriously though, don't ever think I'm anti-American.<

I do not think you are un-American. I think you might sometimes hate America, because you listen and believe poor sources. But then, you could also be right. I just don't think so.

>If I believe the men in charge of our country are helping to disgrace its honor and good name then it's my duty to say something and act on it in some way. I'll criticize and chant no more war till the troops come back home or till I'm blue in the face.<

You should do all you think you need to do. By all means. Just please always remember the servicemen and women that give you that right to be able to protest. Cause without them, you could have your tounge cut out; at least at some point in time, when the Wahhabists are calling the shots.

>Good things are happening there even though they are few and far between, but it's not like the enemy has a face or a small number of people to call on to fight for their cause. It doesn't seem like there is an end in sight.<

I do see the end. In fact recent events indicate to me the end is closer than I ever thought possible. I am referring above to Iraq and Afghanistan. There will still be problems to confront in these two countries, as well as other areas, for decades to come. But not nearly on the scale we see today.

Good stuff. I have enjoyed it.

Bigger
Click to expand...

No one is saying ignore it. If war was a legally justificable option then fine, but the impression we were given was that Saddam could and would attack the U.S. fairly soon as if it were a certainty if the U.S. didn't use preemptive military force. So, obviously it had to be argued that war while a last option only tactic it was indeed the 11th hour already. I don't think most of the world saw a legal justification for the U.S. to attack Iraq without conflicting with some international agreement or law that already existed. I can't say Saddam's past was something to ignore or scoff at, but as of 2003 there wasn't a legitimate legal justification for an invasion.

You have a good soul and maybe because you've seen more history develop and come and pass that you are able to have the outlook you do. I think I'm part of a pessimistic and giveittomenowandImeanrightnow generation, which obviously would be some kind of combination. Even so we're all hoping for the same thing.
 
I guess I missed your point on the Chzech government. I don't know what you are talking about here. I know that the meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intel officer is all but been confirmed as bogus. It's definitely highly unlikely it did take place. According to the 9/11 commission report Atta was most likely in Florida. Here is something from the report on that subject for anyone who might still think this has plausibility. I have the final commision report, but to look for this particular part right now would be a task as my body is aching like hell. This is from a website that had what I was looking for:

Mohamed Atta is known to have been in Prague on two occasions: in December 1994, when he stayed one night at a transit hotel, and in June 2000, when he was en route to the United States. On the latter occasion, he arrived by bus from Germany, on June 2, and departed for Newark the following day. The allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001 originates from the reporting of a single source of the Czech intelligence service. Shortly after 9/11, the source reported having seen Atta meet with AHydromaxad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, an Iraqi diplomat, at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague on April 9, 2001, at 11:00 A.M. This information was passed to CIA headquarters.

The U.S. legal attache ("Legat ") in Prague, the representative of the FBI, met with the Czech service's source. After the meeting, the assessment of the Legat and the Czech officers present was that they were 70 percent sure that the source was sincere and believed his own story of the meeting. Subsequently, the Czech intelligence service publicly stated that there was a 70 percent probability that the meeting between Atta and Ani had taken place. The Czech Interior Minister also made several statements to the press about his belief that the meeting had occurred, and the story was widely reported.

The FBI has gathered evidence indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida on April 11, where he and Shehhi leased an apartment. On April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various lodging establisHydromaxents in Florida from cell sites within Florida. We cannot confirm that he placed those calls. But there are no U.S. records indicating that Atta departed the country during this period. Czech officials have reviewed their flight and border records as well for any indication that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001, including records of anyone crossing the border who even looked Arab. They have also reviewed pictures from the area near the Iraqi embassy and have not discovered photos of anyone who looked like Atta. No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001.

According to the Czech government, Ani, the Iraqi officer alleged to have met with Atta, was about 70 miles away from Prague on April 8 –9 and did not return until the afternoon of the ninth, while the source was firm that the sighting occurred at 11:00 A.M. When questioned about the reported April 2001 meeting, Ani--now in custody--has denied ever meeting or having any contact with Atta. Ani says that shortly after 9/11, he became concerned that press stories about the alleged meeting might hurt his career. Hoping to clear his name, Ani asked his superiors to approach the Czech government about refuting the allegation. He also denies knowing of any other Iraqi official having contact with Atta.

These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip). The FBI and CIA have uncovered no evidence that Atta held any fraudulent passports. KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] and [Ramzi] Binalshibh both deny that an Atta-Ani meeting occurred. There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States. The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting.
 
Originally posted by me:
>Bush said alot, but he never mentioned that immediately after learning that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 87-88, the Reagan Administration blocked a senate resolution imposing sanctions on Iraq, and the succeeding Bush 1 administration gave Saddam's government $1.2 billion in financial credits. Or that the US helped cover up Saddam's poison gas attacks on the Kurds by claiming Iran was responsible. Or that while knowing Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, the US gave Iraq satelite intelligence to help it target Iranians. Or that the US supplied Iraq with anthrax. Or that Donald Rumsfeld was Reagan's envoy to cozy up with Saddam in 1983.<
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Bib:
Not that I believe much if any of the above crap, but what does it have to do with the price of eggs in China? The point was, Saddam proved he had, and was willing to use WMDs. So, what happened to them?
Click to expand...

Here is proof of the US/Iraq relationship:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
 
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050629/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Does anyone wonder any longer why the "War on Terror" name stuck or was created in the first place? It was broad and it would most likely with time deflect attention away from bin Laden and Al-Qaida. It allowed free reign to do whatever the administration wants because as long as Bush is Prez nothing is going wrong and it's all worth it. There are insurgents and terrorists in Iraq along with future terrorists according to the CIA. Exactly how did the administration see its strategy playing out?

Here's something else.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062705A.shtml
 
I will say this, while the thread is on 'current administration' that I reckon Mr Bush will not survive his term in office.
Something tells me he will either get took-out or die from something sudden such as a heart attack.
He's living in a funny time with US presidents aswell, because since 1840 every president who has campaigned under the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn which comes about every 20 years, with the lastone being in 2000 has died in officen with either health crisis or assassination.
Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Harding, McKinnley, Garfield, Lincoln and Harrison have all sucome to this Jupiter+saturn conjunction which occurs when the year ends in a zero, like in 2000.
We'll have to wait and see if Bush Jr can survice this fate.
 
Originally posted by Iwant8inches:
Does anyone wonder any longer why the "War on Terror" name stuck or was created in the first place?
Click to expand...

The "War on Terror" is another big lie this administration is guilty of. Yes, Iraq is now (thanks to W) the central front on the "war on terror", now its 2005, in 2003 it was not. Another thing is the huge military expenses, advanced jets and armored vehicles, missiles and satelites can do nothing against 3 men with a box cutter who decide to hijack a boeing 747. It is always hilarious to see the media illustrating the idea of war against terrorism by showing military training in terrorist camps.
 
Reagan survived his attak, so maybe he broke that old black magic. A live grenade was tossed at Bush when he was giving his speach in Georgia, however, it turned out to be a dud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top