-- 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
OK. They appear to have been wrong. I've never denied it. So, what are we arguing about??? cheers bob
Sorry, I stand corrected. Should have said "and several other people". As far as "who" a few that come to mind at the moment would be Albert, RGD, Rayvan, Calgary, and Tony. The "point" has been several times already. So if you didn't get the jest then you wouldn't get it now. And you don't seem to grasp the concept that there is a difference in guessing wrong and finding out after the fact versus knowing the full facts beforehand and making decisions that aren't based on those facts. All I have seen are accusations that he knew better but did it anyway. And as far as "Americans could surely select a president without the baggage that a man like Bush brings to the office with him" if you don't know the answer to that one you are more clueless Oh, I've heard it a lot of times before so it is not new to me. But usually once the person said it the next time they used a different phrase. They didn't keep repeating it over and over again. Since you seem to have this preference for ducks I can only guess you have one heck of a love for them. That's fine with me, I could care less how you get your jollies. <g> Ruppster
Don't feel bad, Bob. Every time I hear someone spout "oh, you must watch FNC" when someone else makes a comment in support of the President I just have to laugh at the short sidedness of the statement. I used to watch HeadLine News till they went to the new format (too much talk in the evening, not enough news) a few months ago. I have watched FNC for maybe a total of 20 minutes, most of it was funny little clips from the station that people posted on the net during the election. Just because my views are similar to some of the ones they voice on FNC that doesn't mean I watch the channel. Yet that is so hard for some people to figure out. Ruppster
Yeah and I can buy into that, but I am not sure history will look back quite so fondly. Granted those were Security Council resolution Saddam turned his nose up at, and there were serious repercussions attached to them if he chose to ignore the Councils instructions. However, and you knew there was a "however" coming, it should have been the UN to take action, not the United States. I agree with you we are better off without Saddam in this world and we both agree left to his own devices he would have created more problems in the future. Support for the sanctions was breaking down and the US was losing control over what was going in and out of Iraq. The only way to put an end to his reign was to invade and occupy the country. George Bush made the right decision taking what was basically unilateral action (Britain aside) but I do not believe he had the proper authority under international law for military action. As an aside to all of that, I do believe once the decision was made to invade, Canada should have been right there helping our friends and neighbours. It is one more stain our Liberal Government has left on Canada's reputation. -- 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
Congrats! It was a good one. -- 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
To be fair I do believe Bush was deceptive in many of the presentations he made to the general public regarding Iraq. The distinction is I cannot state that as fact since I cannot get into Bush's mind to know what his intent was. So it is my "opinion". I think that is consistent with the points Bob has been making. -- 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
Reread my original post. I never said the administratoin said it was. I simply made a statement. Want to try again? -- 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
Okay, you done screwed up now. We don't apologize in reeky. -- 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
Before or after the invasion? If you are referring to before the invasion then how could the inspectors do their job when Saddam kept interfering? At that time there was no proof that he didn't have them. If he didn't why did he kick the inspectors out instead of letting them do their job? If you are referring to after the invasion that is a different story. It was proven after the fact so it would be a moot point. I read the reports that were posted, especially the outside research one. And the "assessment" that you are referring to wasn't even an official report. It was based on one gents work in a combat situation. The guy made an unofficial log of what had happened. It was never claimed to be a pure research document. And yes, someone took it and thought it would be good as a moral booster. They saw the results and made them public. Later on when things had settled other people came and released results that were more accurate. It wasn't like the first set of numbers were used as a cover up or to defraud the government. And as I said before the numbers can be twisted any one you want. What rates as a success? Does keeping it from reaching its target mean it worked or only if it blows up the Scud completely so it never makes it back to earth? The Army considered it good if the Scud did not reach the engagement zone but the outside research went by the other definition of a success. And how do you base the hit percentage? The Army usually launched 2 Patriots at each Scud. Never hurts to have a backup on the way, right? Do you consider both missiles as a single launch or two separate cases? If you fire two Patriots every time only one can take out the target. With a perfect hit record you would still only indicate a 50% success. There are many different variables to giving it a rating of how effective it was or was not. Now you revise your statement since your first one was proven false. At least you are willing to admit you were wrong, I will give you credit for that. While part of your original point was in regards to the system being flawed I never claimed it was perfect. A new system never is. It was rushed in to action as it was better then anything else the Army had at the time. Would you rather the Army hadn't deployed it and waited till it was fully functional instead therefore leaving the troops unprotected? How many more troops would we have lost back then? Would that have made you feel better? Even a system that is marginal is better then nothing at all. Yes, the numbers used to show the troops how great it was were flawed as I have said before but there was no harm meant in using the numbers. Or is this another one of those "Bush lied" issues? As far as your "point" being that they did not make as big an impact as was stated that was never debated. Plus as I said before and I will say it again (yes, I like imitating a broken record) that depends on how you rate a success. The report you referred to used the same standards Israel did. It was only considered a success if the Scud was fully destroyed in the air. If only the warhead was destroyed but the body of the Scud came down (even outside the engagement zone) it was considered a failure. So of course the success rate would be lower. All the Army was concerned about was that the Scud never reached our troops. If you use that as the method for classifying a success the failure rate was a lot lower. So I still stand by my statement about the Patriots "taking out alot of Scuds". It kept a lot of Scuds from reaching our troops. (but even that depends on what you call "a lot", I'm not even going to stir up that pot. <g>) It took them out one way or another. It's a moot point how it was done as long as the Scuds were stopped from killing our people. Goodnight, Ruppster
(liberally snipped for the sake of brevity) Now who's playing with words? Actually, it wasn't, not exactly, and that was only one of the reasons. It wasn't that he HAD 'em, it was that he had 'em and he had a history of supporting and abetting terrorism. The idea was that there was an unsupportable possibility/danger that he'd provide terrorists with WMDs. It wasn't the "entire reason" and they didn't stress "immenent" at all. The push was that it was necessary to do something before the threat BECAME immenent. You go ahead and rely on "documentaries". I will continue to research the facts for myself. You provide a cite that shows them saying it and I'll take your comment seriously. The 9/11 Commission said no such thing. Who, in the administration ever used "immenent threat"??? Firing on our planes IS an act of war. The only thing that gave us that I can keep telling you that they never said "immenent threat". You can keep on saying it but you will not provide a cite, because they didn't say it. Ari Fleisher once agreed to a reporter's question that the threat was "immenent". I suspect he later got reamed for it. Sigh. That Saddam was a danger to the region, having invaded his neighbors twice. That Saddam had, twice, used WMDs on his enemies. That he had killed tens of thousands of his own people. That Saddam had defied no less than 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. That Saddam had never lived up to his obligations in the cease fire. Is that enuf?? I keep pointing out that Yep, and repitition makes it no less wildly wrong than it was in the first place. Now, that's an interesting take. "Whether he knew he was lying or not..."????? Is that why you so strongly resist being wrong...that you think being wrong is lying????? the true information was He went with the consensus of the intel services. Plain and In no sense did he lie, unless he KNEW Saddam had no WMDs. We can't After the fact, we now know that the were probably right. I'd never deny it. What happened was "data mining", instead of And your "inside" information is?????? Now that's interesting. Can you cite some information that we went to Actually listen to what was said. Oh, great. And, people said Hitler didn't know about the death camps. Riiiiight. If you say so. And, I remind you that the "true information" is almost always available. The trick is to figure out which of thousands of "information" bits is true before the fact. It wasn't shown to be the fact until after the invasion. We've definitely gone in circles. We're wasting each other's riding time. Opposing the CIA, British Intel, Israeli Intel, etc. etc. The man's a liar. Check it out. He said he was sent to Niger by the VP. He denied that his wife had anything to do with his trip. The US Senate Intel Committee disagreed and provided her memo of recommendation. He claimed his wife was covert, and later admitted he'd mispoken He claimed his report debunked the yellow cake story. The US Senate Intel Committe disagreed and concluded that his report actually gave some analysts more reason to believe the story. Absolutely. I am monumentally unimpressed by some opinion peice about "what he said", when I can go to the source and see what was actually said. A case in point...your "quote" of Bush's 16 words. You either believed what some taking head said or pulled it out of Rectal Data Storage. The one thing you did NOT do is go to the source, which gave his exact words, which did not mention either "plutonium" as you once claimed OR "weapons grade plutonium" as you also claimed. I say again, read the Butler report. Read the 9/11 commission report. You believe an incredible amount of crap that you don't bother to confirm. That makes little more sense. There are "reports" that the world is flat and that our visit to the moon was a special effects job. On Dec 16, Clinton addressed the nation; "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biloogical weapons programs and its miloitary capacity to threaten it's neighbors". I've deleted the rest. As you said before, we're running around in circles. We can spend untold hours on this and get nowhere. Why don't we just agree to disagree? I don't know how it is down there in Texas, but I'm wasting riding weather up here. cheers bob
hmmm... Why didn't you ? Exactly which participants would you have addressed the post to ? And why would you have addressed that particular participant in the discussion ? I'm not sure just which one Waco is addressing, his post seems to address one ..Which one is being addressed in your mind ? And why ? Bill Walker
Sorry Wakko, didn't mean it as an attack. It was in response to multiple duck comments from Bill and was meant as a joke. The <g> was to indicate it was meant in humor. I apologize if it sounded like an attack, even to Bill. Bill has been keeping it civil and I didn't want to ruin the mood. <g> Ruppster
