Whatever the reasons, bogus or not, it was a show of force against a dictator the world had little sympathy for. In the short term countries capable of supporting terrorism will be intimidated to scale down that support, but in the long term a new generation of extremists who hate the West have been created. You have to remember these are a people with thousands of years of history, tradition and religion. Their attention span is far longer than ours. While we want resolution by the six oclock news they will continue the fight for a hundred years. And because our democracy dictates we live in an open society not only can we not stop them, in many ways we will assist them. Even now, in Britain fundamental Muslim Clerics are preaching treason, sedition and terrorism and current British laws do not allow them to be quieted. Legislation to stop this kind if incitement is on the table waiting for the next parliamentary session. Personally I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong. There was not the foundation to support the military take over of a sovereign nation. That being said it was important to send a message your country was not to be fucked with. That message has been sent. Forget the nation building. All it will do is cost your country a bunch of money and more young lives. Whatever democracy you might be able to establish will be short lived, by their standards. Bring your fine young men and women home and let Iraq fall into civil war. It's going to happen eventually, now or thirty years from now. Albert, my comments are not so much directed at you or your opinion, more just me expressing mine. -- Don RCOS# 7 2000 - Yamaha Venture Millennium Edition Disclaimer: This message may contain incidental references to various brands of motorcycles, vehicles or parts manufacturers. They are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to upset, inflame or otherwise disturb the sensibilities of anyone associated with the brands. Hyper-sensitive readers of the post who might be upset with the content are advised to make copious notes, organize them into a coherent message and then hit the delete button. http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/radium1.htm http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/ http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/banff.htm http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/kananaskis.htm http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/calgarybrowning.htm
Of course I know and so does many other Americans who have listened to all the spin and bullshit from this administration with George Bush leading the pack in his SOTU addresses.. Condoleeza Rice with her "mushroom cloud" warning and Colin Powell holding up vials of something before the United Nations Committee.. Of course I know they were all lying to justify the war they had planned .. That's your OPINION, not a fact. If it was all that easy to prove, Bush would have been impeached a long time ago.. I've never said they were not clever, just corrupt.. Yes .. it's my opinion and the opinions of many other Americans who have learned to not believe what Bush and his people say.. LOL.. I'll expect you to be alongside of me, supporting the impeachment of George Bush when ALL this business is public.. OK Bill Walker
hmmm.. I never read anything about me carrying a bomb in my bag, in that Constitution... Joke.. There is something that I read somewhere about unlawful search and seizure, though.. There is also something on the books about making terroristic threats, etc.. The presidential oath contains a declaration that he will defend and uphold that Constitution.. also.. Bill Walker
Nossir.. I stand by my comment that you aren't up to speed on the form of government we live under.. The reason is that you've described an authoritarian government that does not have the checks and balances that ours do.. You've described a dictatorial government that it's people follow the leaders without question and challenge.. I also know more then you think. Just because You are definitely "wrong" in your definition of your concept of our government.. hmmm..As far as the "dumbass" comment, I didn't make it.. you did..<smile> A "ruler" can do what he wants without fear of what This was the same Congress that he lied to, in the heat of our incursion of Afghanistan, where we were justified to be .. with the support of every civilized nation in the world.. He lied to that Congress and the American people when he connected Iraq with the attacks on 911.. They gave him the blank check for war, as a last resort.. In this case, Bush used it as one of the first resorts.. The inspection teams were in place to confirm or deny the existence of WMD's and Chemical Weapons.. Before they could finish their work, Bush removed them and commenced the attack.. You know all this, though.. don't you ? He did If you consider lying to Americans during SOTU addresses and other forums, not abusing power, then you are certainly misguided.. He acted as an elected official, not as a "ruler". If you hmmm.. <smile> We'll never know the answer, will we.. I'm not running for anything and have no political ambitions.. The events that have happened during this presidency have been manipulated and exploited by this administration and George Bush.. The man lied to Americans during his campaign in 2000 and his lies and deceptions have increased since he took office.. His policies have caused one disaster after another since he became president.. Would you have stuck your head in the sand and let Saddam Saddam Hussein and Iraq were under the most intense embargoes in history.. He was in a box and posed no threat to the United States or anyone else.. He had been in that situation since the first Gulf War.. Attacking and destroying that country has accomplished nothing, other than to remove him from his position.. The jury is still out on what effect his removal will have on the rest of the world.. As heinous as Saddam Hussein was as the dictator of Iraq, the alternatives that we are facing may be equally, if not more dangerous for all of us.. The Intel that didn't agree with the agenda and strategy of this administration was discounted and dismissed.. The Intel that was used to sell Congress and Americans to support the agenda to attack Iraq was manipulated .. and has been disputed by the very CIA operatives and agents that Karl Rove has tried to destroy.. All the testimony from these people has not been public.. Some of it is just beginning to make it's way to the attention of Americans, now.. I would rather err We've learned that George Bush did little or nothing to prevent the attack on America, when the warnings and alerts were made clear to him, before it happened.. Politics ain't perfect and he would piss off some people LOL.. I certainly agree that Bush politics are far from perfect and contend that his policies have resulted in one disaster after the other, since he has been president.. You can't argue that fact, if you pay attention to what has happened in our world.. With all the excuses and defense of George Bush, you've yet to say what he has accomplished that didn't result in the deaths and destruction of so many, including Americans.. The removal of Saddam Hussein from his position has resulted in a disastrous war where our own are being killed every day.. as well as the many Iraqi deaths .. Bill Walker
I wonder how people figure that since, in the Desert Storm war, Iraq was defeated and Saddam allowed to remain in power only if he kept the terms of the surrender. Even after being given numerous warnings and second chances, he violated the terms and that, my friend, *is* foundation for taking over a soveriegn nation. -- Instead of swerving, I should have been reloading (remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply) 98 FLTRI 83 Nighthawk RCOS#7 Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/ Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/
It is absolutely true. He did have them and he did use them. Anyone who knows anything about weapons and Assuming the chemicals were loaded in the rounds, yes. That doesn't mean that the chemicals had a short shelf life in storage. Or, in some cases, the chemicals that are mixed in order to produce the weaponized material. I heard some of it. And, some of it is true, on it's face, such as your comment. I don't think they are idiots. At the time, I thought they were wrong. No, not exactly. However; His cease fire agreement specified he'd ACCOUNT for the weapons. He refused, despite 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. It seemed to, at the time, a reasonable conclusion that he was hiding something. He also signed up to repatriate his Kuwaitti prisoners and return the billions of dollars of equipment he took out of Kuwaitt. He never did. He fired on our planes patrolling the no fly zone...repeatedly. An act of war. The sanctions were failing and it looked very much as if they were going to be lifted. If the sanctions hampered/stopped his production of bio-chemical weapons, that would no longer be true. Saddam twice invaded his neighbors and used chemical weapons on the Kurds and on the Iranians. We had had him "contained" with the sanctions and other measures. That would shortly no longer have been true. Finally, he just deserved to be taken out. We should have done it as early as 94. No, you don't. You are right that weapons with the chemicals loaded would have deterierated. So, even if that took place, what happened to them? Either there should have been a pile of 'em laying around, or they were disposed of in some way. There is no documentation supporting that, no witnesses and no one saying they were involved in destroying the decayed weapons. And, stockpiles of chemicals properly stored would not have decayed as I understand it. What happened to them? No, I don't think you do. Can you cite any credible source that establishes that the intel community and the administration KNEW that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction? If you do, quick, sell it to the Democrats. They'd LOVE to have it. If by "I do" you mean that you are aware that there were some, Blix, for instance, that said Saddam didn't have any WMDs , that's true. There are ALWAYS people who disagree with the consensus and there are ALWAYS data points that subtract from the certainty of the consensus. The trouble is, that evil dictators seldom invite CNN' cameras into their inner circles and weapons programs. It's always a judgment call, even when you have an agent on the "inside". You don't know if he's been turned or is a double agent. Having said all the above, you might be right that he either lied or, at least, manipulated the data in order to be able to present his best case. (He IS a politician, after all..grin.) Then again, you might be wrong. You don't KNOW. Or, if you do know, you really need to "out" the information. cheers bob
NONE of those countries denied he had WMDS. Those who didn't join us just didn't think we should invade. There's a whole list of those who joined us. And, you KNOW that they "made it up". and yes....Bush.....who got up in front of Congress and Well, first it was in his State of The Union address. Second, it was yellow cake, not plutonium. Third, Tenet wanted it taken out because he didn't know it was TRUE, not that he knew it was not. And, lastly, what Bush said was that Britishs reports indicated that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger, and that's ALL he said on that matter. And, that statement was absolutely true. And, on that matter, Joe Wilson's public statements about his visit to Niger and his actual report differed somewhat. In point of fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee's formal finding was that his report actually gave some analysts more reason to think the story true. He did NOT say what you report. Oh, gee, gas is up. Guess Bush lied.....?????? What Been a small problem with terrorists blowing up the pipelines. I don't remember just how much that point was made. Can you provide cites??? I respect your right to your opinion. I just don't think you've got your facts straight. cheers bob
And, which might those be??? Never watch it. Wasn't there a song, "I fought the law, and the law won"? grin I wouldn't object to the dirty underwear. I'd have a problem with the bomb. I fully support the concealed carry laws. In New Mexico we could carry openly just about anywhere and concealed in a vehicle as well. cheers bob
Hey Bill, You're starting to sound like a broken record with the constant "lies lies, and lies" answer for just about everything. <g> I hear a lot of people saying "he lied about this and he lied about that" yet no one has every backed it up. Ruppster sportster at dodge-semis dot com
LOL.. I'll expect you to be alongside of me, supporting the impeachment of Bill and Brian are demonstrating why the Democratic Party will never again win another election.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:43:12 -0500, "Brian Walker" Now this I thought was rather interesting. "Dictators will ALWAYS report how they have these evil weapons they can use." Even when it means making a public confession to the world that he disobeyed the treaty that said he wasn't supposed to have them in the first place? I don't think so. Considering what he was up against that would have been the same as Saddam saying "Yes, I have them so please come and invade my country and take me out". Or are you trying to say that Saddam was so stupid that if he had them he wouldn't have been able to keep his mouth shut about them? The guy was a dumbass but I don't think he was stupid enough to do that. He had just enough intelligence to be dangerous. As far as your claim that the Patriot missile system never touched a single Scud I only have one question for you about that. If the Scuds weren't stopped by the Patriots what did stop the Scuds? Did they just fall out of the sky on their own before they reached their target? They must not have put enough propellent behind the warhead for it to reach it's target, right? Okay, I lied. I had three questions. I thought you had made some very valid points in several of your messages till that one. Now I don't know what to believe as I would have to consider this one nothing but pure bull. If that was true you know a lot of troops coming back from the Desert Storm would have been making some major noise about it as it was their primary line of defense from the Scuds. While the system wasn't perfect it did pretty good at taking out a lot of Scuds which prevented them from killing our troops. Or were you getting the Patriot system confused with the M247 Sgt York? Ruppster
Yes, that is foundation, but that is not the premise that was used. -- Odinn RCOS #7 SENS(less) SLUG "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org '03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide '97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org rot13 to reply
ROTFL... That's interesting.. hmmm.. George Bush and his crew have gone on world wide television with comments about WMD's, Chemicals, Mushroom Clouds and we know where they're at.. Yellow Cake in Nigeria and We have indisputable evidence..None of it has been proven to be true.. Lied.. of course, they all lied us into a war.. The usual comeback that we've heard since day one of this presidency has been.. "Prove it".. If all those claims that those things are true, "Prove it".. Bush and his crew made those statments to get us into a war.. None of those weapons were found in Iraq.. Prove that George Bush told the truth and did not lie.. I believe that history will eventually reveal that George Bush is the most corrupt president this country has ever had in office.. Almost to the letter, each committee or investigator that has examined these issues have concluded there is a bad smell about all of it.. Demanding that someone "prove" on a newsgroup that Bush has lied or is corrupt.. seems to be the entire defensive argument .. In one of the debates with Al Gore in 2000, George Bush boasted about Texas passing a Patients Bill of Rights law.. and he took full credit for it.. That was an outright lie with just a modicum of veracity.. It is true that Texas did pass a Patients Bill of Rights law.. George Bush, as governor .. vetoed the Bill twice, then a watered down version of the Bill went into Law without the governor's signature.. I'm still pissed that Gore didn't beat Bush's brains out with that one.. LOL.. You see, all the lying that Bush has done to reach that Oval Office didn't just begin with the Iraq build up to war.. This guy has established a life long pattern of lying to get what he wants.. The "Prove it" demand has stood him well and is the favorite tool employed by his handlers.. Bill Walker
And you do........... Actually, the statements were that he had the chemicals, usually. And the chemicals were sometimes referred to as WMDS. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were loaded into their delivery systems. In point of fact, several times it was pointed out that the "stockpile" would fit into the back of a pickup. Since it's quite difficult to stuff a "stockpile" of Again, "the back of a pickup". No, it could NOT be that he never had them. It could be that he didn't have them in 2002. I am. Trot out your cites. It's true that he said it. It appears that he was right. Not at all. I am pointing out to you that hindsight is usually better. The trick is to pick the right stuff out of the masses of data before hand. I have no problem whatever if you maintain that the judgement call was wrong. I object when you use the fact that it certainly appears that they were wrong to conclude that they must have been lying. Nonsense. There are ample reports indicating that they were wrong. There are even a few who claim they were negligent. Not even the 9/11 Commission Report hints that they were lying. I expect you will continue to believe what you believe, and this is your right. You make quite a few flat declarative statements with what appears to be absolute certainty. I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take more than such statements with no supporting data. cheers bob
I have no idea who said it. I don't really much care, either. I agree with it, when it comes to that. The speakers doubt as to 100% confidence is well taken. It does not mean that he thought they were 100% wrong. It merely, and accurately, points out that one cannot be that certain based upon the kind of data one gets from a closed society. Britian. Poland. Spain. Australia. Italy. Poland, for starters. They all actually sent troops. Did you hear the quote yourself? How about providing the quote and the context, as well as your source. OK, just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same speech. The exact WORD he said was "uranium"....which comes in the form of yellow cake from Niger. He did not say there was any evidence that it didn't happen. His, very proper, concern was to ensure that we didn't use information that had not yet been confirmed. There weren't? Have you done any research at all on this??? If you did, it is absolutely incredible that you missed it. You have a habit of trotting out statements that are so incredibly wrong it's hard to believe. and the statement, again, was "weapons grade No, it was "uranium". Nobody in Africa has "Weapons grade plutonium", with the exception of Israel. The "reports" they used to make that statement was from forged Oh, then there ARE reports. Wish you'd make up your mind. Yep, that's readily apparant. And, it is equally apparant that you got your "facts" from RDS (Rectal Data Storage) You read the report, right? Did you read the Senate Intel Committe report/findings on his report? How about the 9/11 Commission's findings? Bullshit. His EXACT words were (the famous 16 words) "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He did NOT say plutonium. And, for your general fund of information, the uranium produced by Niger is in the form of yellow cake. You must have a very rich fantasy life. Your sources are not rich. They are wrong. I watch a lot of things, and read a lot as well. And, before I accept what some talking head SAYS someone said, I go to the source before I use it. Google "bush yellow cake". Learn the truth, from more sources than you care to count. You obviously have strong emotions on this subject and opinions as to the justification for the invasion of Iraq. I respect that. Your "facts", however, lack any similarity at all with the reality. cheers bob
LOL... There've been many "declarative statements made.. Most of them came from George Bush and his administration.. They've been found to be without merit .. It's one thing to hold a participant to these highest standards of "proof".. It's quite another to hold the most powerful man on earth to those same rigid standards ? hmmm.. Something isn't quite up to snuff, here .. We've got a man occupying the most powerful position in the world, who goes before world bodies, sends members of his administration before those bodies to declare that they are in possession of incontrovertible evidence that links Saddam Hussein to 911, has WMD's in his possession and is prepared to attack within 45 minutes, any western nation he chooses.. The "evidence" doesn't hold up in daylight.. None of it.. The walk in the park, following the attack and invasion of Iraq isn't happening, it's become a nightmare.. Nothing represented about this war with Iraq has been anything more than an exercise in misrepresentations.. We are there.. we will have to stay there .. We cannot bring back what we have done .. The most powerful man in the world got us into this mess by deceiving and yessir, he lied.. His people lied and Americans all over the United States are getting those body bags weekly.. Then.. you have the audacity to defend this man who occupies this highest position of trust and power, by demanding "proof" or "evidence" that he lied.. Whew.. Where were you and those demands for proof and evidence before death and destruction decisions were made.? George Bush is in control of the destiny of this world, as we know it.. He has access to the most sophisticated surveillance systems known to man.. The departments for intelligence is second to none.. Members of this administration are his choices.. Why then, is his judgement so disastrous ? George Bush is either totally incompetent to occupy that office or he's such a complete liar that he's unfit for that office.. Which one will you choose ? Interestingly.. none of the incompetents you claim provided Bush with "bad intel" have been fired .. There has been no consequences to any of them.. On the contrary, they've been promoted and rewarded for the incompetence, which you claim led to the speculation of lies and deception.. Curious.. you bet.. Yet .. you rattle on and on, calling on another American to PROVE that Bush lied.. The lies and deception have already been proven, on the ground.. Whether Bush is a victim of deception and lies, or whether he is a liar and deceiver himself, either way.. he has proven that his judgement is so badly flawed that he is certainly not competent to stand in office of the most powerful leader on earth.. Bill Walker but it'll take more
(snipped for brevity's sake...phew) Bill, an elementary lesson in logic. The burdon of proof lies with he who asserts. You assert that Bush lied. You have no proof. You have good reason to believe he was wrong, I grant you. I can live you your belief. Almost to the Nonsense. Demanding that someone When the entire offensive argument is "Bush lied", that's the proper response, especially when they can provide NO information whatever to support the necessary conclusion that Bush knew for sure that the statements were inaccurate when he made them. cheers bob
